Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises a very real issue relating to bank recapitalisation. In October, the Financial Services Authority, along with the Bank and ourselves, agreed that it was necessary to recapitalise the largest banks in the country. The FSA is considering that level of capitalisation, and—as part of the Basel process—it is also, along with others, considering the effect of the requirements of capitalisation in relation to the current economic circumstances—the procyclicality, as it is described. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the issue needs to be looked at.
	As for the two banks in which we have shareholdings, the House will know that there is a requirement for them to maintain the availability of lending at 2007 levels. Since the announcement, RBS in particular has said it will ensure that it treats its small business customers far better than in the past, and that they will benefit from the interest rates being offered.
	There is a lot more to be done. The hon. Gentleman is right to speak of urgency, given the situation that we face at present. We—the Government, the FSA or the Bank—will continue to do what is necessary to help to ensure that sufficient lending comes into the economy, while at the same time ensuring that the banks are resilient enough for the future.

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are serious questions to be asked in the United States about the particular matter to which he refers, and I think I am right in saying that the chairman of the American Securities and Exchange Commission has indicated that there needs to be a thorough investigation there. However, I also think it is important that all banks—the boards of all companies, in fact—should know and understand the risks to which they might become exposed. The evidence of the last year is that far too many banks were not fully aware of those risks or did not make sufficient provision against those risks turning bad. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to learn the lessons of what has happened in the past, which is why I said I wanted to bring forward proposals in the spring to look at aspects of our regulatory system, but that must also be done across the world. The G20 group of leaders and finance Ministers discussed that at the meeting in Washington in November, and we will discuss it again when we reconvene in London in April.

Alistair Darling: In relation to the cost of the scheme, I said when we made the announcement that we would keep all the terms and conditions under review. We were the first into the field. Since then, other countries have come up with schemes of their own, and it is right that we keep these matters under review. As I said in the House when asked about preference shares on Monday, we will look at that, but I want to make sure that we balance the need to ensure that the banks lend to the business community and individuals with the fact that we must make sure that the taxpayer gets a fair deal. The Conservative Front Bench raised that in October, and it is right to do so again now as that concern has not gone away.

Alistair Darling: No, I do not. I wish to say three things on that. First, Peer Steinbrück is an extremely charming man and I enjoy working with him very much. Secondly, I fully supported him when he introduced a fiscal stimulus into the German economy of about 1 per cent.—that is almost exactly the same as what we have done—some time ago. Thirdly, our debt levels our lower than Germany's.

Mark Field: Despite the record levels of debt that the Chancellor is predicting for the next five years and beyond, he continues to asset that Britain is uniquely well placed to deal with this downturn. On what basis has he come to that conclusion?

Stephen Timms: The impact will be very strongly positive. The package addresses small businesses' cash flow problems, their access to credit and management of their tax liability. The fiscal stimulus will be crucial in encouraging economic recovery.

Ken Purchase: Labour have done a great deal for pensioners in recent years, but in these very difficult times, does the Minister have any plans to review the calculation that results in a 10 per cent. notional rate of interest being placed on pensioners' savings before they can qualify for benefit? Pensioners find that difficult to understand, and I must say it is difficult for anyone to understand.

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Business people in Stafford are coming to me with ideas for modern, innovative new projects. When they ask the banks for funding, it is not that the banks say no; they just freeze and make no decision at all. Given that entrepreneurial spirit is the life blood of the country, and all the more vital in these difficult times, can I go back to those businesses and say that now they can go to their bank and get access to EIB funding?

Ian Pearson: As I explained, since the pre-Budget report and our agreement with the banks, approval processes have been going through the European Investment Bank. If the hon. Lady reads yesterday's  Daily Telegraph she will see that Barclays bank has £300 million available for lending to businesses. I encourage all small businesses to look to their bank managers and engage in conversation with them, and to make application for funding that is there at the moment and will continue to be available for the future. On top of that, early in the new year the small business finance scheme will also be available. That is real action being taken by the Government, not the gesturing of the Conservative party.

Alistair Darling: I do think that it is important— [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, you only have to look at the behaviour of Front Benchers opposite to see how fit they are to run anything. I agree with my hon. Friend. Although we want to encourage banks to lend into the wider economy, banks need to be certain that they engage in responsible lending and do not end up lending money to people who cannot repay the loans that they take out.

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, following my visit to Baghdad and Basra yesterday, I should like to make a statement about the future of British troops in Iraq, the timetables, our legal agreements and our force numbers.
	Let me begin by asking the whole House to join me in paying tribute to the heroism of all our armed forces and to their service and sacrifice in Iraq and, of course, in Afghanistan and in peacemaking missions around the globe. Let me pay particular tribute to those who have given their lives in the service of our country—military and civilian personnel. We salute their courage and will honour their achievements. Today we remember in particular Lieutenant Aaron Lewis, 29 Commando Royal Artillery, killed in Afghanistan on Monday, and the soldier from 1st Battalion The Rifles killed in Afghanistan yesterday. At the time of Christmas their families are uppermost in our thoughts.
	On 22 July, I set out to the House the key remaining tasks for the UK's mission in Iraq, and I can today report progress on all these tasks. Taken together, the tasks that we set ourselves reflect our underlying priorities: security for the region, democracy in Iraq, and reconstruction to help the Iraqi people—security against terrorists, strengthening democracy in place of dictatorship, and reconstruction to give Iraq's people a stake in the future.
	First, on security, our aim has been to entrench security improvements by putting Iraqis in charge of their own defence and policing for the future. Our most recent contribution has been to help with training thousands of new Iraqi forces and policemen and women. In total, the UK has helped to train more than 20,000 troops and more than 22,000 police. In total across Iraq, 500,000 troops and police have been trained by the Americans, the UK and other forces. In addition, we have already mentored three brigades of 14th Division, with 9,000 troops, to become combat-ready—the very troops that have repeatedly mounted successful independent operations making Basra now safer for its citizens. As a result, in the past year violence and criminality in the Basra region have fallen dramatically. Yesterday, I met the commander of the Iraqi 14th Division and Iraqi security forces and their embedded British training teams working with them in Basra. I can tell the House that our commanders judge that training is making good progress and is now nearing completion.
	Our second task is to strengthen Iraqis' emerging democracy. At the heart of embedding democracy is the most immediate task of ensuring successful local provincial elections. Provincial elections are now scheduled for 31 January 2009. Conditions are in place nationwide for a high turnout under a UN-supervised process, with security led by Iraqis' own security forces. Thirdly, there is reconstruction and our aim to give the Iraqi people an economic stake in the future. That has meant restoring economic activity and building basic services in the Basra area.
	Recent proposals for new investment in the Basra area now amount to $9 billion of projects. With assistance from Mr. Michael Wareing, whom I thank, the Department for International Development has helped arrange 18 investment missions in the past few months. Following our London and Kuwait investment conferences, the new Basra investment commission, which we helped establish, is holding a major investment conference today in Istanbul. In addition, the Basra development commission has launched a youth employment scheme, which already works with nearly 100 employers to give work experience and training to potentially thousands of young Iraqi people.
	We have helped rebuild the economic infrastructure. Since 2003, we have spent £100 million on giving more than 1 million people improved access to clean water and power. Basra airport, which is central to future economic development, is now under effective Iraqi civilian control, delivering on the commitment that I outlined to the House in July. That includes air traffic control and management of the airport terminal—now under the control of the Iraqi authorities—and we expect to complete formal handover arrangements at the turn of the year.
	Since criminal gangs were driven out of the port of Umm Qasr by the Operation Charge of the Knights Brigade, there are now plans for major port expansion. New investor proposals and contracts, including from British companies, offer the potential to make Basra once again the major trading hub in the region.
	On 1 January 2009, with the expiry of United Nations resolution 1790, Iraq will regain its full sovereignty. Yesterday in Baghdad, I told Prime Minister Maliki, and he agreed, that British forces in Iraq should have time to finish the missions that I have just outlined. In the past three weeks, concluding with our talks yesterday, we have made substantial progress with the Government of Iraq. We have defined: first, the tasks that need to completed; secondly, the authorisations needed to complete them; and thirdly, a way to provide a firm legal basis for our forces. At all times, we have worked closely with President Bush and the Americans, and our other coalition partners.
	On 16 December, the Iraqi Council of Ministers agreed to submit to the Council of Representatives a short draft law to give the presence of UK forces a legal basis after 1 January. The law is now going through the Iraqi Council of Representatives; it had its first reading yesterday and is scheduled to have its second reading on 20 December. We expect the process to be complete before UN resolution 1790 expires. In the event of the process not being complete, the Iraqis have told us that Coalition Provisional Authority order 17, which confers protection on coalition troops, will remain in place. Our troops will therefore have the legal basis that they need for the future.
	Once we have completed our four tasks, including training for the headquarters and specialists of 14th Division—with the precise timing of its completion decided by commanders on the ground—the fundamental change of mission that I described in the House last summer will take place by 31 May 2009 at the latest. At that point, we will begin a rapid withdrawal of our troops, taking the total from just under 4,100 to under 400 by 31 July. The majority of the remaining troops will be dedicated to naval training.
	Yesterday, Mr. Maliki and I agreed that Britain's future role will focus on continuing protection against attack of Iraqi oil platforms in the northern Gulf, together with long-term training of the Iraqi navy—work that I saw for myself at the port—and support for training the officers of the Iraqi armed forces. In other words, that is the realisation of a normal defence relationship, similar to those we have with our other key partners in the region, which I agreed with Mr. Maliki in July was our joint objective for 2009.
	Of course, that relationship will be one strand of a broader, enduring relationship with democratic Iraq, which I also discussed yesterday with the Prime Minister. Our future relationship will be one of partnership. We agreed to continue the shift of focus to economic, commercial, cultural and educational relationships. We will maintain a large embassy headed by a senior ambassador in Baghdad and maintain small missions in Basra and Erbil. The embassy in Baghdad will expand its commercial office and the Department for International Development will expand its programme of economic advice in Baghdad. We have discussed a plan with Prime Minister Maliki for British companies to provide expertise to the Iraqi Ministry of Oil, and Britain can help Iraq's plans to give 10,000 Iraqi students scholarships overseas.
	In the past five and a half years, Iraq has faced great challenges and endured dark days, but it has also made significant progress. We can be proud of the way in which our forces carried out their mission in the most difficult times, and we can be proud of what they have accomplished. In my discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, the two vice-presidents, the Basra governor and the army leadership, I was assured of Iraq's continuing gratitude for Britain's role in freeing Iraq from tyranny. The UK's new relationship with the new Iraq is one that has been justly earned by the efforts and sacrifices of our forces, and by our contributions to Iraq's peace and reconstruction.
	Iraq has many challenges to confront in the days to come. No road that it takes will be easy, but today's levels of violence across the whole of Iraq are at their lowest for five years, economic growth this year is almost 10 per cent., and yesterday, in Basra, I was told that for just 35 seats being contested in the provincial assembly elections in January, there are more than 1,270 candidates, with 53 different party labels, standing for election. So, as Iraq approaches its second free provincial elections, democracy is clearly growing.
	In supporting and protecting the progress that we have made, the British campaign has endured great hardship and sacrifice. Yesterday, I stood with the Chief of the Defence Staff, the head of the Iraqi army in Basra and members of our own forces outside our headquarters in Basra, in front of the memorial wall naming and commemorating every single one of the 178 British servicemen and women who have lost their lives in Iraq in the service of our country. It was a fitting and moving tribute to men and women whom we must never forget. Because remembrance is vitally important, the Defence Secretary and I have decided, after consultation, that we shall bring that memorial wall now standing in Basra home to a fitting resting place of its own in our own country. We will do so when, at the end of July, the last of our combat troops leave Basra. It is a memorial now for ever to be in Britain. I commend this statement to the House.

Gordon Brown: We are in total agreement about the contribution that our forces have made, about the help that we have been given by Iraqi citizens and about the need for economic development and political advances in democracy always to complement what is done militarily. Where I part company with the right hon. Gentleman is that I do not believe that Iraq is an exact parallel to Afghanistan— [Interruption.] Well, Afghanistan was a country held by the Taliban, but it was virtually ungovernable and had very little economic development. Iraq is confronted by a number of problems, including divisions within the country between different groupings as it deals with the legacy of Saddam Hussein. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, it also has the presence of Iran as a threat on its border. I believe that we have to look at some of the things we have done in Iraq as quite different from what we are doing in Afghanistan.
	As to the right hon. Gentleman's questions about what will happen over the next few months, I am satisfied that the overwatch we have carried out over the last period of time, in which Iraqis themselves have been involved in combat and we been training them, sometimes while embedded among them, for future purposes, means that as we leave, the Iraqi forces are strong enough both to maintain order in the Basra area and to have policing services that, although not ideal, are sufficient for the task.
	Of course, there are very difficult days ahead for Iraq. It still has a great deal of work to do, as the right hon. Gentleman said, on rebuilding its economy, but I believe that we have made a very significant contribution to that. Iraq still has a lot of work to do in improving its democracy, and the local government elections will be important to it. Of course, there is still far more to do to train its navy. That is one of the reasons why, as I saw yesterday, a great deal of British work will now involve helping the navy to do what it has to do to be a strong navy in the area.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the agreement between our forces and the Iraqi Government. The agreement provides the conditions under which, following the expiry of the UN resolutions, our forces can be protected while in the country. I will place in the Library the document that is going to the Iraqi provisional assembly, the Council of Representatives. It contains means by which, if there are disputes on these matters, they can be resolved, and it maintains that if a case came up, any person concerned would remain in British detention, not Iraqi detention, during the period of the investigation. It is similar but not entirely similar to the United States' agreement. We should remember that the United States' presence will be longer. It is engaged more than we are in combat operations, and the discussions with the Iraqi authorities were different from the very special discussions that we had with the Iraqi authorities.
	May I add one point about the economic situation? We have a large number of people helping the Iraqis to develop their economy. Michael Wareing has done a huge amount of work and is holding the investment conference today. I have met the Basra development commission on a number of occasions. The Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary have been deeply involved in helping it.
	I was asked about the involvement of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. There will be a UK Trade & Investment presence, which is a joint Foreign Office-Business Department operation, and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will visit Basra and the area at the start of the year. I was also asked about embassies. The United Arab Emirates recently set up an embassy in Baghdad, and we are encouraging other countries to do so.
	Equipment is an issue that often comes up in relation to lessons that we must learn. I can say today that the Secretary of State for Defence is announcing that the Ministry of Defence has signed a contract worth more than £150 million to buy more than 100 new tracked all-terrain vehicles, which will be known as Warthog and will provide improved protection for our forces, while retaining the all-terrain capability of Viking vehicles, which have proved invaluable over the past two years in the terrain of Iraq and Afghanistan. Whenever money has been required for new equipment, armour or helicopters, we have been prepared to provide it.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman's last point about an inquiry, I should say to him that the Franks inquiry dealt only with the causes leading up to the Falklands war, not the war itself. I presume that what he is proposing is different, not the same as the Franks inquiry, but I have always said that this is a matter that we will consider once our troops have come home. We are not in that position at present, so it is not right to open the question now. That is the course of action that the Foreign Secretary, I and others have stated to the House on many occasions.

Nicholas Clegg: I would obviously like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of the unnamed soldier from 1st Battalion The Rifles and Lieutenant Aaron Lewis, who tragically lost their lives in Afghanistan. Their deaths are reminders of the sacrifice and bravery of all British servicemen and servicewomen who have lost their lives over the past year.
	Let me clear: I passionately believe that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, but I am second to none in my admiration for the professionalism, dedication and courage of British servicemen and servicewomen. That is why I share their relief and the relief of their long-suffering families that they will finally be coming home soon. We should all be proud of them. But are the Government not ashamed of what they have asked them to do, and are the Conservatives not ashamed that they cheered the Government on? Listening to the Prime Minister's extraordinarily rosy account of Iraq, one would have been forgiven for thinking that nothing had ever gone wrong.
	Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that he and the Conservatives sent our brave servicemen and servicewomen into an illegal war? When will the Prime Minister apologise for what he did, signing the cheques for George Bush's invasion? Is not the true scandal today, as we look back at that fateful decision to send our troops into battle in Iraq, the single worst foreign policy decision in the past 50 years, that not one of the men and women on the Government Benches and on the Conservative Benches will apologise for what they did? Is it not time for the Government and the Conservatives to hold up their hands and say sorry to the British people for Iraq?
	I am proud to be speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches today and leading the only party that was steadfast in its opposition to this illegal war. Does the Prime Minister remember that when my party voted—every single Liberal Democrat MP voted to stop the war—his party and the Conservatives booed and jeered? President-elect Obama called the Iraq invasion a "dumb war". Obama was right; they were wrong.
	We have paid a huge cost for the Government's decision to cover George Bush's back, following him, no questions asked, into an unethical, unjustified and illegal invasion—a human cost, the cost to our own standing in the world and to the rule of law and good government here at home, the cost of increased radicalisation and instability in the Arab world and beyond, and an immense cost to British taxpayers, at £4 million every day, and counting. Does the Prime Minister now accept Joseph Stiglitz's estimate that the Iraq war will have cost us £20 billion? That is equivalent to about 800 of the Chinook helicopters that our troops desperately need in Afghanistan.
	Will the Prime Minister commit himself to a full inquiry? Unlike the Franks inquiry, it should be open. It should be held in public, because it is the public who need to see and hear that lessons really are being learned. The Government must not end this war as they started it—in secret, unaccountable and behind closed doors. Does the Prime Minister agree— [Interruption.]

Nicholas Soames: I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in praising the exceptional success of British troops in Iraq. At this time of year, we should also remember their families, who have been so steadfast for so long. Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that British troops have through the war-fighting phase and into the peacekeeping phase exhibited a range of skills almost unmatched by any other armed forces anywhere in the world, and that those skills are only sustained, at the same time as we are fighting in Afghanistan, by a considerable investment in defence training? Will the Prime Minister bear that in mind when those very great demands come to be made?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has taken a long-term interest in that. DFID has worked mainly in the Basra area over the past few years. It has set up the Basra development commission and worked with a number of businessmen to bring jobs and industries to Basra. One very interesting project is being run on the model of the Prince's Trust in Britain, where young unemployed people are taken on through individual firms. I think that everybody welcomes that, and it could be applied to the rest of Iraq. That is why DFID's interest and the work in terms of civil society will now move from Basra to other parts of Iraq to seek to build better institutions for the future and give new hope of jobs and prosperity to people in all parts of Iraq.

Kerry McCarthy: I welcome today's announcement and the confirmation that we will continue to play a role in Iraqi life, particularly in terms of economic development and promoting democracy. Will the Prime Minister assure us that the role of women in Iraqi society will be a central theme of our work there, particularly in terms of access to educational opportunities, involvement in economic life and representation in parliamentary democracy?

Harriet Harman: With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for the week commencing 12 January:
	Monday 12 January—Second Reading of the Business Rate Supplements Bill.
	Tuesday 13 January—Second Reading of the Saving Gateway Accounts Bill.
	Wednesday 14 January—General debate on Iraq: future strategic relationship.
	Thursday 15 January—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on armed forces personnel.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 19 January will include:
	Monday 19 January—Second Reading of the Policing and Crime Bill.
	Tuesday 20 January—Motion to approve European documents relating to a European framework for action and European economic recovery plan, followed by motion to approve European documents relating to financial management, followed by motion to approve European documents relating to EU-Russia Relations.
	Wednesday 21 January—Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 22 January—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by general debate: subject to be announced.
	Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I also offer my best wishes for Christmas and the new year to all hon. Members and, on behalf of all hon. Members, may I offer all our best wishes for Christmas and the new year to the Clerks of the House, the Officers of the House, the catering team, the cleaners, the police, the Doorkeepers and all who keep the House running smoothly? Everyone deserves a good Christmas.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement. She is here fresh from her performance at Prime Minister's questions yesterday. As this is the season of good will, I thought that it might be helpful if I were to point out a few mistakes that she made. First, she said that the Conservative party
	"opposed our action to recapitalise the banks."—[ Official Report, 17 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 1090.]
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) pointed out, that is categorically not the case.
	Secondly, the Leader of the House claimed, in column 1095, that we opposed the right to request flexible working for parents with children under six. But the official record of the debates on flexible working shows that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said from the Front Bench:
	"I would like to place on the record my support for flexible working." ——[ Official Report, Employment Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2002; c. 602.]
	The right hon. and learned Lady's third error was to claim that the Conservative national loan guarantee scheme
	"is not a guarantee of anything to anybody." —[ Official Report, 17 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 1090.]
	Well, that is a different view to that taken by the Federation of Small Businesses, which said that it
	"welcomes plans by the Conservative Party to guarantee billions of pounds worth of business lending through this tough credit climate."
	I am sure that the Leader of the House, not wishing inadvertently to mislead anyone, will be keen to correct the  Hansard record on these points as soon as possible.
	The Leader of the House has confirmed that on 17 January there will be a general debate on armed forces personnel. Last week, when I asked why the Defence Secretary had not made an oral statement on the delay in the procurement of two aircraft carriers, the Leader of the House said:
	"There will be a debate on that in the week in which we return from the recess."—[ Official Report, 11 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 677.]
	It would normally be out of order to discuss procurement in a debate on personnel so will she now change the title of that debate to include procurement?
	Yesterday, in a point of order, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said he had learned that the Government were set to ratify the Council of Europe convention against human trafficking. No statement has been made to the House and he was not informed, although he is chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on trafficking. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether the convention has now been ratified and explain why that welcome news was not given in a statement to the House?
	Last week, I raised the fact that the Housing Minister had cancelled provisions allowing sellers to put their homes on the market before a home information pack had been completed. Yet days after she condemned home owners for exploiting that loophole, her own Department did exactly that when advertising the ex-Home Secretary's former grace and favour home. If the Government are going to insist on measures that will do nothing to help our ailing housing market, they should at least have the decency to adhere to them themselves. May we have a debate on double standards in Government?
	Finally, as this will be a difficult Christmas for many families as they tighten their purse strings, they must be galled to see the Government wasting taxpayers' money. The Department of Transport introduced an efficiency programme that was supposed to save £57 million but has cost £81million. The Ministry of Justice has spent £130 million on refurbishing an old office block, at a cost of £915 per square metre—18 times more than a standard refurbishment. I can only assume the current Lord Chancellor has been taking design advice from Lord Irvine of Lairg. Finally, we hear that the taxpayer is paying for training for the Culture Secretary to improve his public speaking, for the Home Secretary to boost her confidence and for Lord Mandelson to learn how to use a BlackBerry. I suppose that he is more used to issuing instructions than to taking them. May we have a debate on Government profligacy?
	I jumped the gun somewhat last week, but as this is definitely the last business questions before Christmas, may I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and all the Officers and staff of the House and all right hon. and hon. Members a very happy Christmas and new year?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady is right this time as this is the last business questions before Christmas, although she is still lacking somewhat in Christmas spirit. She made several points about what I said yesterday. If she wants to challenge what I say at Prime Minister's questions, she should make her party let her do them. When the Prime Minister is not available for questions, she should stand in for the Opposition, instead of being left to answer the questions on Thursday. As it is panto season, let me say that at least I got to play the principal boy yesterday. Like Cinderella, she had to sit in the shadows.
	The right hon. Lady suggested that we have debates on double standards in Government and Government profligacy. They sound more like Opposition day debates than Government debates and I suggest that she chooses them. She also suggested that we broaden the terms of the debate on armed services personnel. I said last time that procurement issues are vital for armed services personnel, but I will consider her request.
	The right hon. Lady asked about human trafficking, and I will write to her and set out all the work that is being done across Government on that issue. What is really important is what is done in the voluntary sector, to tackle advertisements in newspapers, by the police, by the prosecution service and by the courts. A wide range of work is being done on the issue and I shall write to her with the details. I thank her for her support on that issue.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asked about the financial implications of the de Menezes inquest. When a particularly expensive inquest falls on one area, arrangements and adjustments are made. For example, extra resources were available for the coroner service in Oxfordshire because of the returning military who arrived at the airport there. Arrangements are made to adjust resources and that will have been the case in relation to the de Menezes inquest.
	The hon. Gentleman followed up the point made by the shadow Leader of the House about the defence debate when we get back. As he will know, there are set piece defence debates throughout the year. One is always on personnel, one is on defence in the world and one deals with procurement. Generally speaking, without wanting to trespass on the discretion of the Chair, it is possible to raise issues that cross the boundaries in those general debates in quite a substantial way. Procurement issues are very important to the operational ability of our armed services personnel and I am sure that hon. Members who want to raise questions of procurement will be able to do so and will get a response from the Minister in the debate when we return in January.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of accountability to the House for the work of the Government in tackling the global economic crisis. There are, of course, Treasury questions and there have been numerous statements. We want to be sure that at all times the House is kept up to date with information and that there is also a chance to question Ministers. Since the economic crisis hit towards the end of this year, that has happened more regularly than just every month and we expect that to continue to be the case. The economy is a No. 1 priority for the Government and we know that it is a No. 1 priority for the House. We do not expect the House not to have the opportunity to hold the Government to account and to debate economic issues in the future.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the middle east. Without expecting the terms of reference of the debate to go too broadly, there will be an opportunity to raise the question of the middle east in the debate on Iraq and related strategic issues.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned job losses and the National Economic Council. Let me take this opportunity to say that the Government have the utmost concern for those who are faced with losing their jobs at Woolworths. Every possible arrangement will be made to help them to ensure that they can get another job as quickly as possible as soon as they lose their job at Woolworths.

Philip Hollobone: Unemployment in north Northamptonshire has risen by 50 per cent. in the past 12 months. There are now 5,300 people without work, compared to 4,000 in 1997. With unemployment set to be the dominant political issue of 2009, may we have an debate on the Floor of the House early in the new year so that we can discuss an issue that is going to affect so many millions of our citizens?

Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass on my sincere and profound thanks to the Home Secretary for her decision to look again at ways of making local policing more accountable to those being policed? Will she ensure that hon. Members have the maximum opportunity to propose and explore different models of good practice in effective and accountable community policing at street, estate and ward levels? I do not expect that process to be finished by the 19 January Second Reading of the Policing and Crime Reduction Bill, but perhaps it is not necessary to have a rigid model that is applicable all over the country.

Meg Munn: I am delighted to take this opportunity to speak in the recess Adjournment debate. I intend to deal with the issue that was just raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who speaks for the Opposition on children's issues, but is no longer in his place. I want to talk about child protection, the tragic death of baby P and other child abuse cases. How could this have possibly happened?
	Today I do not want to concentrate on individual cases but to talk more generally about the issues and concerns. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was right to say that the issue goes very wide and is enormously important. There are a great many aspects to the issue and I am sure that in the time available I will not be able to do justice to all of them, but I want to take this opportunity to debate some of the complexities in more detail.
	Before I was elected to this place, I was employed in social work for almost 20 years and spent a great deal of that time on child protection, ending up as the assistant director of children's services in York. We must all be concerned that previous reviews of child protection failures have identified the same or similar mistakes on the part of the professionals involved, whether social workers, health workers, teachers or police officers. We have to ask why the lessons that were identified so many times have not become part of the standard operating procedure in child protection cases.
	We also need to understand in much more detail the pressures that make it difficult for even the best and highly competent social workers to operate effectively. What do we ask when we look at child protection? What decisions do we ask front-line workers from across agencies to make?
	We know that children thrive best when all their needs are met, whether emotional or physical, so removing a child temporarily or permanently from their birth family is an extremely serious step. It brings into question the fundamental rights of families to enjoy family life as they choose. It also has a drastic effect on the child's emotional well-being.
	Research into adoption tells us that all adopted children and, indeed, adults have to address for themselves why they were adopted. Even those who were given up freely by their birth parents can suffer feelings of rejection and damaged self-esteem. Those children who are removed from their parents, go through the care system and are placed with permanent adoptive families often have significant problems. Social workers thus have to assess the risk to children—the risk of significant harm if the child stays with its own family, but also the risks of removal and placement with another family.
	Of course we see children who are removed from home for a short while and placed with foster parents while social workers work to improve the abilities of the family to care for the child. They may look at the fundamental issues of how they care for the child—parenting skills—but they may also address the drug and alcohol dependency issues which, if they were not there, would mean that the parents could care for their own child or children. There may be a trialled return home, which we hope succeeds. If it does not, there may be a further period in care and the child may ultimately be placed for adoption. Throughout the process, extremely difficult questions are involved in weighing up whether it is better to get the child back home with its family or to find it an alternative family for life. There are emotional implications for children and their security, but when a child's birth family has complex problems there are no easy answers.
	What is good enough parenting? When is it right to take the drastic step of finding an alternative family for a child? In cases such as that of baby P where there is horrendous abuse, we quickly come to the judgment that the point has long since been passed when that decision should have been made. In many situations, however, the decision is not easy.
	For social workers, the burden is not just that they are in a situation where they have to try to make the best decision about a child's future; our social services are overworked and poorly resourced, which makes things more difficult. A problem may not be identified because the social worker has too many cases and does not have time to assess the situation properly, so mistakes are made. I have been looking at some of the social work blogs, which are a way of finding out what people are thinking that was not possible a few years ago. Social workers say that they go to bed worrying about the children they are responsible for, because they do not have time to do all the tasks they should undertake. I remember that feeling well.
	With some families, social workers are taking significant personal risks. I remember social workers visiting a house and finding firearms. It is not unusual for social workers to be threatened, but even in those circumstances they have to continue to try to focus on the child and make the best decision. They may come across new challenges that were not so prevalent when they trained. When I started in social work drug abuse was uncommon, but now it is a regular feature of the difficulties families face.
	Is it possible to prevent child deaths? Yes, but not all of them. There will always be cases that could not have been foreseen. We must recognise the element of risk, which inevitably means that sometimes things will go wrong despite the best efforts of all concerned.

Meg Munn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a difficult question because there are confidentiality issues for particular families. It is enormously important that such reviews are carried out properly and in a way that makes the circumstances public, but they must not become witch hunts for particular social workers. Furthermore, people must be able to learn from them and I have some suggestions about how we can do that better.
	Over the years there has been much structural change in child protection and a new approach to the needs of children through the Every Child Matters agenda, which focuses on organisations involved in providing services to children, sharing information and working together to protect children and young people from harm and to help them achieve what they want in life. Some of those changes have been profoundly helpful— for instance, by bringing the different professionals involved together more often and emphasising the need to share information. I was pleased that the Government recently announced a co-location fund to bring health, education and children's services together under one roof to facilitate those processes. From my experience, I know that when people get to know other professionals well and develop a daily working relationship with them, they are much more likely to be effective and to share information and achieve what they are trying to do.
	Of course, at the heart of the matter is a fundamental issue about knowledge and skills. There has been insufficient rigour in ensuring that all professionals involved in child protection learn the lessons from case reviews and inquiries. Case reviews are vital for all involved in child protection—everyone can learn more from studying past mistakes—but we also need robust and thorough inspection systems, both internal and external, to ensure that child care staff understand the risks and what is required to address them.
	We must demand higher and more rigorous standards of training, better continuous professional development and proper training for those who manage the child protection system. Compared to other professionals, such as doctors, teachers or nurses, social workers are few in number and their profession has not been given the same kind of attention as others. For years, the career structure has been debated to address how those with most experience can remain in front-line work. Some local authorities have done that more successfully than others, but too often the most experienced people are in management positions and not necessarily on the front line, where the skill, knowledge and experience needed to deal with difficult situations are sorely required. I therefore welcome the establishment by the Government of the social work taskforce. It will begin work in the new year and will address those and other issues.
	All front-line staff need managers who understand what is required, who check their work regularly and ensure that the right information is collected and that thorough assessments are made. We must not forget that such work puts a strain on the well-being of social work staff so we need to ensure that it does not overwhelm otherwise competent, dedicated and skilled staff. Day in, day out, dealing with difficult families and difficult circumstances is very demanding. Social workers rarely receive recognition when things go right, and the negative press about tragic cases has an impact on their morale and, ultimately, on people's desire to do that difficult and demanding work. We need to ensure that social workers are properly supported in their tasks and also properly remunerated.
	I shall touch briefly on paperwork, because there is a tendency to view the recording of information as bureaucratic and unnecessary. This is where I feel that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, has got it wrong. I do not in any way feel that his intentions are bad—I too believe that we need to be vigilant about unnecessary bureaucracy—but accurate recording and robust management information are at the core of child protection. Indicators of likely future harm are best identified from past behaviour, so co-ordinating information and accurately recording visits and contacts, with proper analysis, are crucial. Supervision notes must be kept so that it is clear that social workers are receiving appropriate advice, and decisions must be recorded on files. That is essential for good practice and ensures that children have continuity of protection even in the absence of their allocated social worker or in the event that they move to a different authority. Many such families move around regularly and one of the danger points in child protection is when they move from one authority, which may have been working extremely hard with them, to another, which may not pick up the significance of various issues in the family.
	I have concentrated primarily on the role of social workers, but other professionals have a vital role to play and must be involved. Working together across professions to monitor children, using all the information about health, child development and education, is essential.
	I turn briefly to the prosecution of those who have harmed children. As we can see from the baby P case, we have moved forward. We saw the benefit of legislation that came in only a few years ago to ensure that everyone in a household could be held responsible for the death of a child even if it was impossible to identify who exactly had killed the child. However, I am concerned about the length of time that such cases take. It is obviously essential that nothing impedes legal processes and the conduct of a fair trial, but what about the children?
	The serious case review on baby P was produced 15 months after he was killed, at the end of the court case, so for 15 months issues in Haringey were not fully addressed. I urge the Government to consider how more speedy reviews can be undertaken and how action can be taken to address failings and improve services, without the need to wait until the end of a court case. If we do not do that, we are failing children.
	A number of people have called for a public inquiry into the case of baby P. Public inquiries are long, complicated and expensive. I believe it is unlikely that such an inquiry would uncover new lessons to learn, beyond those that previous inquiries have discovered or beyond that which the serious case review will uncover. So what would be the purpose of such a public inquiry at this point? The priority, in my view, needs to be to ensure that all those who work with children are properly trained and put that learning into practice.
	The Government have taken a number of steps to address child protection concerns, some of which I have already referred to. The management of children's services has rightly been raised. The Government propose that children's services directors should have both education and social work experience. I am concerned about how that will be achieved. Although experience of child protection matters can be gained by staff whose previous career was in education, I am not sure whether the depth of knowledge required can be achieved easily. The Government should consider making each local authority have a senior manager with the required experience designated as having overall responsibility for child protection issues. That may be the director, if suitably qualified, but if the director has not got that depth of experience, it should be a second-tier manager.
	The Department for Children, Schools and Families must ensure that it properly collates the lessons from all serious case reviews. My response to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is that bringing together information from reviews across the country is enormously important; in that way, we identify trends and understand the issues faced by social workers.
	Today, I received an answer to a parliamentary question about the number of children who have been the subject of serious case reviews who have died from ingesting methadone. I have had that concern for a number of years, having quite by chance discovered other local authorities, as well as the one in which I was working at the time, where that had happened. The Department does not know the answer. That is not good enough; it needs to collate the information to look at issues that are perhaps not being identified, so that social workers can do their jobs and policy and practice can respond. In addition, I believe it is fundamental that the Government ensure that research on good practice is disseminated, as well as that on failings, so that staff can learn from what works, as well as from what goes wrong.
	When child protection goes wrong, it can all too readily result in tragedy. The resulting press storm can leave onlookers with the impression that the whole child protection system is failing, which is not so. For the most part, children are protected and helped to have better lives.

Paul Burstow: Over the years, the House has undoubtedly ceded to the Government more and more of its former control over supply. As a consequence, there probably would be no need to recall Parliament, although it certainly should be recalled in such circumstances, as my hon. Friend rightly says. In fact, I want to come on to the economic situation.
	This Christmas, many of my constituents are facing an uncertain future. They fear for their livelihoods. Their homes and savings are threatened by circumstances beyond their control. I say that there is fear, but there is also frustration, because my constituents do not feel that the Government have the same sense of urgency in helping struggling families and small businesses to weather the economic storm as they did when they bailed out the banks. Action is required at every level to help our country through the downturn.
	I am pleased to say that my local council was one of the first in the country to put together a comprehensive package of proposals to tackle the effects of the economic downturn locally, using the levers and networks at its disposal. That plan has already begun to deliver some results. I want to share some of those initiatives with hon. Members, because I hope that local authorities throughout the country will take them up in the coming weeks and months.
	One of the initiatives is to improve the cash flow of small businesses. More than 200 small businesses supply my local authority, Sutton council, which is cutting the time that it takes to pay its bills from 30 days to just 10. The feedback from business so far shows that many firms are complimenting Sutton council on being such a prompt payer by comparison with other local authorities. I hope that other local authorities will take a leaf out of the Government's book in cutting the time taken to pay bills, and out the London borough of Sutton's. Business costs are also being cut by the council, by boosting the numbers taking up small business rate relief. I was very impressed by the fact that Sutton's efforts since late November have resulted in local companies saving £118,000—a crucial lifeline for hard-pressed businesses.
	Crucially at this time, we must ensure that those who are most at risk in the financial turmoil are claiming the benefits that they need to carry on. I am thinking in particular of the forgotten victims of the economic downturn: our senior citizens. Nationally, £1.8 billion of council tax benefit goes unclaimed every year, and pensioners in particular are missing out on £5 billion-worth of unpaid benefits. Those people already tend to be the poorest in our communities, and their situation is made far worse because they are unaware of what they are entitled to. Sutton council is working closely with the Pension Service, Sutton citizens advice bureau and Sutton borough Age Concern to promote and maximise benefit take-up, so that they ensure that pensioners and others are receiving the necessary help with their living costs.
	Pensioners often face much higher rates of inflation than the retail prices index suggests. Indeed, independent research has shown that seniors face an inflation rate of about 9 per cent., which is almost double the national average, and it is hardly surprising that pensioner poverty and pensioner indebtedness are serious and growing issues, compounded by the fact that pensions are not linked to earnings.
	Just one fifth of average earnings is the value of the UK pension, which makes it one of the lowest in the world and in western Europe. I shall cite a few countries as examples. It is lower than that of Hungary, Portugal and the Czech Republic, all of which are some 30 places below Britain in gross domestic product rankings. That is why my colleagues and I certainly argue very strongly that the earnings link should be reinstated now and why we believe that the basic state pension should be increased substantially.
	The Pensions Act 2008 aims to encourage private savings and to help those not in workplace schemes, but until the link to earnings is reintroduced, the foundation on which older people base their finances will be continuously eroded. A practical sign of the Government's commitment to encourage private savings would be to put in place the long-overdue compensation scheme in respect of Equitable Life victims.
	Although the credit crunch and economic downturn are undoubtedly defining issues of 2008 and will continue to dominate in 2009, other serious issues demand our attention, and one of them has been addressed already by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) in a very good and thoughtful contribution about child protection. Undoubtedly, the tragic case of baby P has shocked the nation, yet there is a terrible familiarity about his dreadful death. It would have had strong echoes of the Victoria Climbié case even had it not occurred in Haringey. The majority of children who die from abuse or neglect in this country know the perpetrator; most abuse takes place within the family, or is done by friends. As a society, we are in denial about that hard truth.
	"There is a terrible sense of deja vu in the Laming report. The same weaknesses have led to the same mistakes, with the same missed opportunities to save a tortured child's life."
	I first said that in 2003, when I was the Liberal Democrat spokesman on child protection in this House, and I repeat it now. I have a deep sense of frustration about the fact that, fundamentally, nothing has changed with regard to the problems identified in the Laming report.
	Many initiatives have been taken; Every Child Matters is not just a phrase, but a series of actions that the Government have taken. However, there are still too many social work vacancies plugged by agency staff. There are still failures of oversight and accountability. There are still fragile systems of communication and collaboration between agencies. We saw a wave of resignations in the aftermath of the baby P case, and the almost ritualistic condemnation of social workers. That condemnation in turn deters people from applying to become social workers, which creates a vicious circle.
	Much of the blame for baby P's death has been placed at the door of Haringey social services, despite the fact that the police and medical professionals also saw him during his short life. Those other professionals all too often find themselves able to hide behind social workers, who bear the brunt and take the flak; as a result, they avoid their share of responsibility for what happened.
	Baby P was admitted to hospital twice. He was seen by a GP and he was taken to a child development clinic. During that time, his mother was arrested twice. The Crown Prosecution Service considered the case but decided not to prosecute. It took that decision just a day before he died. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley that we need to speed up serious case reviews and make sure that the Department that takes overall responsibility for those reviews, on behalf of us all, is much smarter in analysing the lessons from reports and translating those lessons into changes in practice on the ground.
	I nevertheless support my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) in her call for a public inquiry, if only because it is essential that we look at what lessons were not learned from the Laming inquiry and take the necessary steps to ensure that they are learned.

Paul Burstow: Yes, but that is not what has happened, and that is why we seem to be in a never-ending cycle of child deaths from abuse. That is why there is still a case for an independent review. It is not just the national health service, the police, social workers and Haringey council that are culpable. The Government and inspectorates also have questions to answer. Why was no action taken in February 2007, when the Department of Health was warned by a former Haringey social worker of the failings in child protection there? Just what did Ofsted do when it took over responsibility? After all, we are talking about Haringey, the epicentre of the last tragic death that convulsed the child protection system.
	Ofsted's assessment method has been found wanting. The drive towards light-touch inspection regimes places lives at risk by obscuring the human reality of the chaotic lives with which social workers have to contend. That is hidden behind a spreadsheet of cold statistics. I read the transcript of the Children, Schools and Family Committee's inquiry and looked into the discussions with Ofsted's chief inspector of schools, and I was struck by how much reliance is still placed on data.
	The baby P case has yet again exposed a fundamental question: how do we spot and protect those at risk in our communities? What shocks us all about the abuse that baby P suffered is that when we look at the information that becomes available afterwards, we see that such tragedies are preventable. Even so, they happen time and again—and not just to children; they happen to people of all ages. The reality is that abuse is a concern not just for children, but for older people. Often, they are even more out of sight and out of mind. The numbers are appalling: every year 342,000 older people suffer unspeakable cruelty in this country. Most often it is physical, psychological, sexual or even financial, and it is perpetrated by those closest to the victim.
	Shockingly, 64 per cent. of elder abuse takes place within the family home. One individual who suffered unimaginable cruelty was Margaret Panting, who died in 2001 with 49 injuries to her body, and who was living with relatives in Sheffield. No one was prosecuted for those actions. Despite calls for new laws to protect people like Margaret Panting, nothing has happened. There is a bias towards children and victims of domestic violence in our safeguarding systems. Parliament has rightly legislated to tackle child abuse and domestic violence, but Governments have not followed the logic of that and legislated to protect adults who, through circumstance, become vulnerable. That lopsidedness in the system is graphically revealed in the staffing ratios for child and adult safeguarding. For example, in one primary care trust there are 10 members of staff covering child protection for every one responsible for adult protection. That may be a stark example, but I fear that it is far too typical. Legislation is essential to ensure that all the agencies involved in safeguarding adults really collaborate.
	If the tragic death of baby P could happen when social workers had a right of entry to his mother's home, what horrors are being perpetrated by adults on other adults when professionals can still be turned away on the doorstep by a person's supposed carer? We have to worry about that. I am not suggesting that legislation is a panacea that will instantly correct such terrible wrongs in our society. Humans will always err, and mistakes will happen, but we must ensure that our systems are as robust and resilient as possible, and are subject to rigorous testing.
	Just as I fear that Ofsted's drive towards light-touch inspection needs to be rethought, so too does the light-touch approach of the Commission for Social Care Inspection and its successor, the care quality commission. The laws on domestic violence brought about a shift in public attitudes on that issue; in the same way, it is time to give vulnerable adults and older people—a group to which we all hope to belong one day—the protection that they so rightly deserve.
	Another group that finds itself powerless and forgotten is those who come to this country seeking refuge from the conflict and unrest in some of our world's most troubled places. In particular, I want to highlight the situation in which some of my constituents have found themselves; I am sure that the situation is replicated across the country. Mandy Dube is from Zimbabwe, and has been living in the UK for the past 12 years. She applied for asylum in 2006 and she is, like thousands of others, still waiting for the outcome of that application. Yet in the meantime the Government have told Mandy that she is not entitled to work, and she is therefore left in limbo, waiting indefinitely, unable to earn the money that she needs to maintain a minimum standard of living.
	Similarly, another constituent, Pathmarajat Rajanaygam, a Tamil from Sri Lanka, has been suspended from his supermarket job because of a delay in determining his application. He is eligible to work under the terms of his leave to remain, but because he does not have the specific document that indicates that fact, his employers have suspended him pending the update in his status. In both cases, the UK Border Agency has left my constituents in legal and employment limbo. That may leave them destitute, and with little option other than to enter the black economy, where they risk being exploited.
	My Tamil constituents as a whole have a broader complaint to make to the Government. They strongly feel that not enough is being done, or has been done, to force the Singhalese Government to end the murder of innocent people, respect human rights and secure a peaceful settlement in that war-torn, troubled country. We in this country have a special responsibility, given our past colonial involvement in Sri Lanka, to seek a fair and just end to the conflict.
	I want to end my contribution by paying tribute to just some of the people in my constituency who make a difference to the lives of others. Clearly, time does not permit me to name everyone whom I should like to name, but in light of the comments that I have made about refugees and those seeking leave to remain in this country, I want to pay tribute to the work of Refugee Network Sutton. Its small group of volunteers work unstintingly to help people, not only when they first arrive in the area—they give them essentials such as groceries, cleaning material and bedding—but afterwards. They give people ongoing support with their integration into the community. English classes, drop-in centres, and Christmas and Eid parties are just some of the ways in which that dedicated Sutton-based group is transforming lives. I applaud what it does.
	I must also mention a few individuals. First, Marilyn Gordon-Jones, whom I nominated as a volunteer hero this summer and who came to the House to be recognised as such, has for many years given dedicated service at the Sutton Lodge day centre, Age Concern and Sutton Nursing. Her faithful commitment to and affection for those with whom she works rightly deserve our applause. Secondly, Shaun Whitehead commands the air cadets in my constituency. His huge personal commitment to the squadron is extraordinary. Young people so often get a bad press these days; it is great to see a youth leader with so much passion and commitment and young people who clearly get so much out of what he is doing.
	Thirdly, I want to acknowledge the tireless work of Heather Shaw, who took on the chairmanship of Sutton neighbourhood watch two years ago in difficult times. Her energy and enthusiasm have opened doors and the organisation's fortunes have turned around as a result. Finally, I should like to mention Melodie Shelbourne, who sadly died in January this year. She was the chief officer of Volunteer Action Sutton. She was a fantastic leader and motivator in the voluntary sector and she touched and changed the lives of many in my area. Everyone who knew her was the better for it, and she is sadly missed.
	Those are just a few of the people whom I have had the privilege of knowing and meeting in the past 12 months and for many years before that—

Mike Hall: I am not going to. I am going to ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he will use his good offices to do two things. The first is to ensure that the meeting takes place in the new year. The matter has been raised on both sides of the House and in various different places, and we need that meeting to take place. I also ask my hon. Friend to make sure that the Government take an inter-departmental look at the problem to see what we can do to bring relief for places of worship, scouting organisations, hospices and other organisations that have been caught by the change in policy. It would also be helpful if United Utilities produced figures that demonstrated beyond any doubt that the policy is revenue-neutral. You will not be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that I have been visited by lots of organisations that are paying more, but by no one who is paying less.
	That leads me to my next concern. It is a sad shame that the former Member for Crewe and Nantwich, my good and honourable friend the late Gwyneth Dunwoody, cannot be here, because she would be about to see me eat humble pie. Some time ago, we had an exchange in an Adjournment debate about whether there should be unitary local government in Cheshire. Gwyneth made a powerful—and, I thought, misguided—speech about why she opposed it, and I spent some of my time telling her why I thought that she was wrong. It may turn out that Gwyneth was far more right than me, and I shall explain why as briefly as possible.
	One of the first things that the new Cheshire West and Chester shadow unitary authority did was advertise for a new chief executive with a salary of £173,000—as close as it is possible to get to the Prime Minister's salary, although the two jobs are significantly different. I have a local government background and do not object to local government officials being paid the rate for the job; I just do not think that £173,000 is such a rate—it is far too much.
	The next decision taken by the shadow authority concerned special responsibility payments. In local government, the tradition is that if a person is entitled to more than one such payment, they take the highest but do not take the second or third. The shadow authority decided that people can take as many responsibility payments as they have been awarded, which is wrong. When I was the leader of a local council, there were no special responsibility payments, although that is not the issue as I do not disagree with the system. However, when council tax payers' money is spent, it should be spent fairly and properly.
	I was also very much in favour of unitary local government, because I thought that it would bring service delivery closer to communities and improve services, but I have been proved wrong again. From 1 April, we will have a two-tier refuse collection service in the new unitary authority. The rubbish bins of the residents of Chester will be emptied once a week, and those of the residents of Vale Royal will be emptied once a fortnight. When I first asked the chief executive what the unit cost per household would be in 2009-10, he said that he could not tell me until September 2010. That, of course, was nonsense. He has now given me some indicative figures, which show that fortnightly household refuse collection in Vale Royal will cost £46.37; the weekly collection in Chester, however, will cost the princely sum of £46.48. For 9p extra, the residents of Chester will have their bins emptied once a week, while bins in Vale Royal will be emptied once a fortnight. I am not sure whether those figures compare apples with apples—the figures given by the chief executive may not compare like with like—but if the difference is only 9p, I do not see why, in a unitary council that starts on 1 April 2009, there should be a two-tier refuse collection. Refuse collection is one of the services for which householders pay their council tax. If it is right for there to be weekly collection in one part of the new authority, it should be right in another.
	I am also very concerned that the shadow unitary authority has decided to reduce the number of programme area boards from eight to five; the whole purpose of bringing democracy closer to people was that there would be those area boards. The three towns in Vale Royal—Frodsham, Northwich and Winsford—are being put into rural area boards, when they should have boards of their own, so that they can be involved in the decision-making process. That was in the "People and Places" consultation document that we took forward during the debate on the unitary authority, and that is what I would expect the authority to implement.
	I move on to incineration, another controversial issue in my constituency. My constituency has three proposals for waste incinerators; none of them are in my constituency, but three are on its borders. One at Weston Point has already been approved. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). It was wrongly approved; it should have gone to a public inquiry, but it did not. It has now been decided that it will go ahead. Another incinerator is proposed for Ince Marshes, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller); it went to a public inquiry and a decision is awaited. There were very strong grounds for that application to be refused, as it is not in the Cheshire waste management plant, but on a greenfield site designated specifically for the expansion of the petrochemical industry. It is the wrong location, and we await the result.
	The third proposal is for an incinerator in Lostock, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne); it is on the boundary with Northwich, which is in the southern part of my constituency. I have contacted Cheshire county council about its proposals, but it is not prepared to give me information of any substance on the basis that it is in negotiations with four preferred bidders about its waste strategy for the next 25 years. The discussions are taking place in secret, and the council does not want to inform me about what is going on. I have been in touch with one of the preferred bidders, the Waste Recycling Group, which brought forward the proposal for the incinerator at Lostock. It has confirmed that waste incineration is an integral part of its plan and that Cheshire county council has said that it wants a self-sufficient approach to the disposal of its waste.
	If Weston Point incinerator is built by INEOS Chlor, it will take all the waste from Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cheshire. There is no economic case for a second or third incinerator on the periphery of my constituency. I am concerned that Cheshire county council has not yet grasped that point, and that it is still proposing to go ahead with a policy of waste incineration and will announce the two preferred bidders in February. It will then be for the new unitary authority, with Cheshire East unitary authority, to decide how to proceed. I am strongly of the opinion that the proposed incinerator at Lostock is totally unnecessary and economically unviable, and that if it were to be built it would have to import waste from elsewhere, which would break the Stockholm convention and pose a threat to public health in the area. I wanted to put my thoughts about that on the record.
	I want to move on to an issue that has been a great cause of concern to me—the outbreak of measles in my constituency. I would not call it an epidemic, but there has been a massive increase in the number of my constituents and their children who are suffering from measles, which is the overspill from the now discredited campaign to discredit the MMR jab. My area of Cheshire has experienced the largest outbreak of measles outside London. The Health Protection Agency contacted schools and parents to try to encourage them to have the jab. We now have teenagers who are susceptible to contracting measles, which is a very infectious disease. Most people who were involved in the campaign to discredit the MMR jab, including those who demanded of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, that he say whether his son Leo had had the MMR jab, share responsibility for the outbreak of measles in my constituency. We must now give a positive message on MMR, encourage people to take up the vaccinations that are available and contain that very contagious disease once and for all. I hope that in the weeks and months ahead parents in my constituency will feel confident that they can now go to their GP or nurse practitioner and say, "We want our children vaccinated with the MMR jab. We know that it's safe and there are no contingent health risks, and it will benefit the health of our children."
	I think that Members would be disappointed if I did not give them an update on progress at Daresbury science and innovation campus in my constituency.

Mike Hall: I am sure that that is so, because this week at Daresbury we have had a European first. There is a prototype machine there called ALICE—accelerators and lasers in combined experiments. Alice is of course part of the "Alice in Wonderland" story, and Daresbury is where the Rev. Dodgson lived and wrote the stories, so that is a nice connection. The people there have accelerated electrons to 99.9 per cent. of the speed of light and minus 271° C, which is as close as possible to absolute zero. They have demonstrated that we can now look at chemical experiments as if we were making movies or videos in real time. That will take science on to the next level—it is a major breakthrough.
	It is even better than that, though. By generating the energy that is needed to accelerate the electrons as closely as possible to the speed of light so that they can be peeled off in straight lines through X-ray machines, they have demonstrated energy recovery, so all the energy that is put into accelerating the electrons can go back to the start, and we can start all over again at a reduced cost. Those electrons are going to be accelerated at about 11 million V. It is absolutely dynamic science. That is not the end of the project, as some people might think. Now that we have proved that the experiment works, the scientific possibilities are endless. The new light source, which I hope that the British scientific community will take on, has been proven at Daresbury, and the intellectual possibilities of the prototype should be exploited to the full.
	I want to finish on an unusual note. Last Friday—this is most unusual for most Members of Parliament—I opened a post office, which is in the Northwich part of my constituency, where Mr. and Mrs. Asif have opened a post office in the high street. They invited me along to do the opening, and the shop was absolutely full of customers taking advantage not only of the services provided by the post office but of other services. They have innovative ideas about how they are going to make this post office succeed, and I was delighted to be part of that opening. I hope that the venture is a huge success and that my constituents have a fantastic benefit from it.
	Finally, I wish to refer to my constituent, Mr. Bert Dyson, Member of Parliament— [ Interruption. ] I am sorry—Member of the Order of the British Empire. However, Bert would make a very good MP. In the past 25 years, Bert has been behind a project with Helsby golf club to raise money to purchase powered wheelchairs for severely disabled children. In the years that Bert has been doing that work, enough money has been raised to purchase 259 powered wheelchairs, which have transformed the lives of the children who have had them. Bert has had to retire because of ill health and has passed the reins on to another member of the committee, although he will still be involved in fundraising. I thought it appropriate to mark the occasion of Bert's retirement by mentioning him in my speech and congratulating him on the excellent work that he has done to improve the quality of life of young children with severe disabilities in my constituency.

John Grogan: I have always been an assiduous reader of the Select Committee reports that my right hon. Friend produces. He has taken the words right out of my mouth: the essential problem for British pubs is the widening differential between prices in pubs and in the off trade. When I was a young man, there difference was about three times—that is, it was three times more expensive to buy a pint in a pub as it was to buy the equivalent amount of beer in a supermarket. Now, the margin is eight times, and widening.
	The Scottish Government are suggesting that a minimum price be introduced next year, and it will be interesting to see what impact that has on the debate in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are other routes that could be explored as well. In Europe, the different regulations relating to VAT are once again being examined, and it is possible that regulations could be passed allowing a lower rate of duty on draught beer, which would be another way of allowing the pubs to compete more favourably. I hope and expect that this will be an important issue for Parliament in the coming year.
	No preview of Parliament in 2009 would be complete without a little reflection on the impact of President-elect Barack Obama on world and British politics, and he also has a connection with British pubs. He visited a British pub in 1996 while on a stag weekend, so he has some experience of them. Furthermore, in Adam Boulton's reflections on the Blair and Brown years, he reflects that our own Prime Minister was more comfortable in a pub environment than his predecessor. He spotted him the Marquis of Granby, and said that the Prime Minister had apparently visited the pub of his own free will. So, having outlined the task for the all-party parliamentary group on beer, I shall finish by saying that when the new President visits these shores—in April, I think—I very much hope that our Prime Minister will invite him to a British pub, perhaps the Marquis of Granby, for at least one pint of British beer.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who raised some important issues about the planning system, one of which I hope to take up in my small contribution to the debate.
	I begin by joining the Conservative Chief Whip in praising my hon. Friend the new Deputy Leader of the House in advance of his maiden speech in these debates. I am sure it will be scintillating. He has been one of the usual suspects who have attended these debates in recent years, and it must be the nightmare of any usual suspect that they would end up having to answer the issues raised by hon. Members.
	I know that we will get a wonderful contribution from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who in each of the Adjournment debates before a recess always invites hon. Members to visit her constituency. We have no statistics, though, showing how many take up her invitation .
	I have no quarries or incinerators to speak about, but I start by thanking the Home Secretary for a decision that she took yesterday, I think, which was obvious in the published version of the Policing and Crime Bill, which received its First Reading in the House today. On Tuesday the Home Affairs Committee took evidence from the Local Government Association and the Association of Police Authorities, and I wrote to the Home Secretary telling her that the Government's proposals for directly elected members of police authorities were fundamentally flawed. Forty-eight hours later, the proposals have been withdrawn. The Home Affairs Committee, of course, takes credit for that decision.
	The Home Secretary chose, unfortunately, not to make a statement to the House, but instead to announce her changes to Patrick Wintour of  The Guardian. Nevertheless, we are grateful for what the Government have done. It surely would have been wrong to give single-interest or extremist groups the chance to get elected to police authorities, thereby aiding the politicisation of the police. There is always politics in policing, clearly, because we have a Home Secretary who is about to choose the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner, but what we were concerned about, and what every group that wrote to the Select Committee was concerned about, was the fact that if we have those elections, there is a danger that the whole police agenda could be hijacked in a particular direction. I thank the Government for what they have done.
	I am not quite so keen on the statement that the Government put out today concerning the review of the rights of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens to come to work in the United Kingdom. I declare my interest as a former Minister for Europe with responsibility for enlargement. I have always felt that the citizens of countries that join the European Union should be treated as equal citizens, and I could never understand why Romania and Bulgaria were singled out among the 27 for their citizens not to be given full and equal rights to come to work in the United Kingdom.
	The Government review the decision every year and have just put before the House a written statement indicating that they are not changing their position, and that those who come to work from Romania and Bulgaria will have to continue to work as self-employed people. That is the wrong decision because it results in even greater difficulty in dealing with employment issues, though I welcome the Government's decision to expand one of the tiers to allow more agricultural workers, which will benefit people like my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and others who represent rural constituencies and have been complaining of the lack of people applying for such jobs.
	I shall raise three brief points concerning a number of matters which I hoped the Government would have allowed more time to discuss before the House adjourned. The first is a matter that I have raised on a number of occasions—diabetes. I declare my interest as someone who has type 2 diabetes. I suppose it is the way I discovered that I have type 2 diabetes that encourages me to raise the matter in the House at every opportunity, especially as we arrive at the Christmas season.
	The chairman of the all-party beer group is encouraging Members to visit pubs over the Christmas period—not something that many Members will feel reluctant to do. However, I caution Members who have not had a diabetes test. I do not want to embarrass Members over whether or not they have been tested for diabetes, but as they enter the Christmas spirit and are given boxes of chocolates and sweets and consume a lot of sweet foods and carbohydrates over the next four weeks, they should pause, especially if they are slightly overweight—again, I am not looking at any right hon. or hon. Members in particular. If they have that slight problem, it is vital that over the Christmas period they have a diabetes test. The test takes only a few seconds, and they will then know whether they should consult their GP in order to have further treatment.
	That is how I discovered I had type 2 diabetes just a few years ago. I am not saying that as a result I am not as overweight as I was five years ago, but that discovery enabled me to take my medication. There are 2.2 million people in the United Kingdom who are diagnosed with diabetes, but 750,000 people are unaware that they have the disease. One of the problems facing us as legislators is that it is costing the Government £1 million an hour to treat people for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. It accounts for approximately one tenth—10 per cent.—of the entire NHS budget.
	Let me issue a plea to Ministers, and indeed other Members, to raise this issue in their constituencies. We hear fantastic statistics about the amount of money that the Government have put into the health service—more money than has been invested in it at any time before. I should like that money to be spent on preventive medicine—on screening people and making sure that they are healthy—rather than its being spent on them when they go into hospital, which, of course, is much more expensive. This also applies to young people. Nearly one in four children aged four or five in English primary schools is overweight or obese, and there are approximately 1,400 children who have type 2 diabetes—some as young as seven—as a result of being overweight. Some have inherited their condition from their parents. I inherited mine from my mother, who sadly died of diabetes complications.
	I also want to talk about mobile phone masts, which touches on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight: the planning system. We all use mobile phones, or most of us do. There are 65 million mobile phone handsets in the United Kingdom. There must, therefore, be mobile phone masts; otherwise we would not be able to communicate with each other through our mobile phones.
	I am constantly reminded by constituents of the problems that they experience when mobile phone companies erect mobile phone masts without consultation and without taking the views of local people into consideration. If a mast is less than 15 m high, companies do not have to apply for full planning permission; they can make a prior approval application to the local planning authority, which has only eight weeks in which to object. If it does not object, there is deemed planning consent. Leicester's planning department is, I suppose, as busy as any of the other planning departments in Members' constituencies, and because it is so busy, it is difficult for it to adhere to its timetable. As a result, masts are being erected without the support or co-operation of local people. If a mast is over 15 m high, of course, a planning application must be made.
	At the start of 2008, there were about 50,300 base station sites in the United Kingdom. Two-thirds are on existing structures and buildings. There are now nearly 74 million mobile connections in the United Kingdom, and the number is increasing every day. I am sure that other Members, including the Deputy Leader of the House, have had representations about it. We need to review the regulations very carefully, and stop the mobile phone companies automatically being given permission just because the local authority is not able to reply in time. I urge the Government to look into the issue.
	The latest such proposal affects a road at the heart of my constituency, the Melton road, which is frequently visited by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), when he comes to see his relatives in Leicester and goes out to buy his bhajias—not budgerigars, as I have been misquoted as saying—in the Belgrave road. When he goes there, he will observe the ambience of the Belgrave and Melton roads. The latest proposal by Vodafone is to erect a huge mast on the pavement of the Melton road, one of the busiest roads in the country. That would spoil the local environment and upset local residents—and, of course, their Member of Parliament and local councillors. It is decisions of that kind that cause so much upset. Representatives of Vodafone came to see me last week, and I told them that I would oppose the proposal. I think it extremely important for us to take account of the detrimental effect that such decisions made by companies have on the appearance of an area.
	Sadly, I do not have a list of constituents that I can read out at the end of my speech to thank them for all their work—those who have distributed leaflets for me, or who have been particularly kind, or to whom I have forgotten to send Christmas cards. I think, however, that we ought to have a debate about changing the procedures of the House. Perhaps at the end of each day's sitting, when petitions are presented, Members can present lists of constituents who are local heroes and heroines, so that we need not necessarily do so during the Christmas Adjournment debate.
	May I take this opportunity to wish everyone who works in the House—the staff and Officers of the House, and my own staff in particular—a wonderful Christmas break? We look forward to seeing everyone again in January.

Andrew MacKay: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. We will all follow his inquiry very closely.
	On the involvement of senior police officers in the Met, I hope I am not being too cruel, but what keep coming back to me are the words of Alan Clark when he was referring to the generals in the first world war and the wonderful soldiers in the trenches, because our ordinary police officers risking their lives and well-being on the streets of London daily are "lions led by donkeys". I very much hope that there will be major changes at the top of the Metropolitan police force.
	We must address the issue of how the House authorities dealt with this matter. It is clearly highly unsatisfactory that the police were allowed to raid the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford without a warrant and that insufficient questions were asked. I passionately believe that not only must Members of Parliament not be above the law, but we must be treated exactly the same as all our constituents. However, it is important that, in such cases, the House authorities—the Speaker, the Serjeant at Arms, the Clerk and others—satisfy themselves first that there is a case to answer and that any action is not in breach of the long-standing tradition that protects our constituents' confidentiality in this House.
	Clearly, that did not happen in this case and an investigation needs to take place. In his original statement on the day of the state opening, the Speaker rightly agreed with me and tried to set in motion a process to enable such an inquiry. It is shameful and deeply regrettable—I do not believe this was anything to do with the Leader of the House or her deputy, because I think they were leant on by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary—that the motion that was tabled did not set up a Committee in the way that the Speaker wanted and the rest of the House expected.
	We all know that, these days, the Standards and Privileges Committee does not have a Government majority, and nor should it. It is equally plain that although a Standing Committee of the House or, for that matter, a departmental Select Committee should reflect the balance of the parties in the House, that should not be the case on something as important as this. That is why when it came to vote for the Committee as set out in the motion, those on the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and nationalist Benches rightly voted against, why so many Labour Members either joined us or abstained and why the majority was so minute.
	The second reason for the minute majority was simply that the Committee was not going to meet, except to adjourn immediately after it had appointed a Chair, and that was quite wrong. The Committee should be carrying out this investigation. Where do we go from here? Clearly, the Speaker's Committee is dead and buried, unless the Government change their mind—I am not holding my breath, and I do not expect the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to say in his winding-up speech that they are going to change their mind. So the only way forward is to refer this matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee. I hope that that will happen as soon as the House returns, so that the Committee can look into all these matters.
	The third aspect to the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford is, of course, ministerial involvement and responsibility. It is abundantly clear that what was leaked to him embarrassed the Government but was not a matter of national security. It is deeply regrettable that the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, noisily abetted by the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, among others, led a slur, a smear and what, outside this place, would clearly be a potential slander against my hon. Friend, suggesting that something much more serious was involved and that a major security breach had taken place.
	If that were the case, is it not a little odd that the so-called whistleblower was arrested on one day, but it was not until 13 days later that police actually turned up here and raided my hon. Friend's office, and arrested him in his constituency? I notice that it has now all been quietly dropped and forgotten, but what a minority of Ministers did was nasty, unpleasant and wrong and I am sure that it embarrassed Labour Members as much as it annoyed us.
	On the subject of the whistleblower, let me make it clear that except in the most exceptional circumstances public servants should not leak information to politicians, journalists or anyone else. When it is not a matter of national security, a full internal inquiry should be carried out in the Department and, in a serious case, if the culprit is found, he or she should be dismissed without any compensation. That should have happened in this case. For some reason, it did not, and we ended up with this heavy-handed police action.
	I am confused about the Home Secretary's role in this matter. We have taken advice from the last two Conservative Home Secretaries, my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who are very distinguished. They both said unequivocally that if they had been Home Secretary, they would have expected to be told if a Member of Parliament was to be arrested and his office raided. If by any chance they were not told, they said that heads would have rolled. They have been somewhat backed up by the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), who intervened on the Home Secretary a couple of weeks ago to say that he would not have been so placid if he had been told after the event. Well, all of us who know the right hon. Gentleman know that he is many things, but placid is not one of them. We can just imagine what would have happened if he had been Home Secretary and had learnt about what happened only afterwards.
	The Home Secretary's role is unfortunate. We have to accept, because she is a right hon. Member, that she has told the truth and she did not know. That puts her in a difficult position, because the question is why she did not know. Furthermore, why did she not do anything about it afterwards? Strangely, it appears that the Cabinet Office knew rather more, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office was rather more involved. That raises many interesting questions for the inquiry and, possibly, the Select Committee. Indeed, there will be more than one Select Committee looking at this matter, because the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has suggested that the Public Administration Committee will also inquire into the events.
	My second point again involves the Home Secretary who, of all Ministers, has had the worst war in the last few months. She is clearly in great difficulties. Here I link in with the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who was right to apologise. If Gwyneth Dunwoody had been sitting in her customary seat in the corner, she would have enjoyed and appreciated the apology. Why could not the Home Secretary bring herself to apologise, when being cross-examined earlier this week about why Sir Michael Scholar had been so critical of the release of statistics on knife crime that were incomplete and immature? If she had done so, she would have gained huge respect on both sides of the House, because we all make mistakes. I have always found that if people apologise, they are forgiven by every reasonable person.
	It is an immensely serious issue. Sir Michael Scholar was appointed by the Government—it was a good appointment and it is right that we should have such a position—as the watchdog on statistics. I am sure that I do not need to remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he is also an ex-Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. He knows what is going on from back to front. We saw that gentle, rather academic, scholarly face on our television news absolutely furious at how the statistics had been manipulated. We cannot help but feel that again it was not the placid Home Secretary's direct fault, and so we go back to Downing street and the Cabinet Office.
	One can imagine some bright young thing who hopes one day to sit on the Government or Opposition Benches thinking, "Now, the Prime Minister has had this knife crime summit in his diary for a few days. Wouldn't it be good to give him some really good statistics to show that it has all been sorted out?" That was wrong. It should not have happened and people such as the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary should apologise and ensure that that bright young thing spends a little more time learning the way the world works. What happened was deeply regrettable.
	Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) rightly pointed out, it is a disgrace that we have not had a statement on Equitable Life. I made that point to the Chancellor earlier today, so I shall not dwell on it.
	It is desperately important that we continue to have more debates on the economy, particularly when the Minister for the Olympics has made it clear—I think that she is right—that this is the worst recession we have ever known. We need to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer just why it is not the Government's fault. If the markets have decided, due to the reduction of the pound against the dollar and the euro, they have clearly got it right.
	I end by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all staff here a very happy Christmas—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am hoping that everybody who wishes to contribute to the debate will be able to do so. I have had my eye on the clock, and after the next speaker, the time limit on speeches will be reduced to 10 minutes. That way, I hope that everybody will be able to make their contribution. I call Dr. Ian Gibson.

Ian Gibson: I will support the cause and be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to weave my talk around a document that has just been produced by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, a creative manoeuvre of the Government's from early on in the 1997 period. The document's title is "Attacking the Recession: How Innovation Can Fight the Downturn". It points out that many countries have historically got out of recession—recessions come and go—by playing to their strengths. It mentions Finland, Japan and other countries. It talks about the strengths of economies—the parts that are moving—and argues that such considerations can give people a chance to develop new ideas, innovations and new ways of thinking. Perhaps we need to emphasise that a little more, with regard to what we are doing creatively.
	Now for a sharp contrast: the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), who is in the Chamber, will know that I always mention railways, because I have a real fetish about the Norwich to London rail line. He has worked with me on the issue. That rail line has everything that the document tries to replace. It suffers from absolute defeatism; it cuts jobs; it closes Delia Smith-approved restaurant cars—you cannot get much better than those—and it gives every excuse for lateness, from foxes on the line to cars on the line. Anyone who wants an exciting journey from Norwich should get a train on that line. It will stop outside the emerging Olympic village, which can be seen growing in the time that the train sits there. That is an amazing feature; I am sure that many young people would like to see how buildings can be stuck up at that rate. Blow me, but when the Princess came to Norwich on Monday, she was late as well. Once we get the royals on our side, we might make some progress.
	Some of us have been trying to get the line repaired for some time. If there is snow, the line gets paralysed for days. This country invented the train, yet here we are still with these problems. For the next three years at weekends we will again have to get on buses—we have already had three years of getting buses on Saturday mornings or Sundays and so on. Many people who work or study in London come up to Norfolk and are subjected to all that.
	Some of us have also fought for the dualling of the A11. Thanks to the Government, it looks as though it will happen sooner rather than later; the last few miles are about to be done. The hon. Member for South Norfolk has given up on the trains; he now takes his car, and the dual carriageway will be ready for him before the trains are in order.
	We are trying to do all these things in a country where the train is absolutely essential. It can be pleasant and fun, and when it works it really works. Restaurant cars can be very conducive to good interactions between people. In general, we need to bite the bullet on the train network in this country and make it really fit for purpose. Many construction and engineering jobs would come too, and that would be part and parcel of taking our country forward in the current situation. Furthermore, if National Express and the rail network do not get it together, my solution, as always, would be to renationalise the railways. The cry for that will grow and grow. We will get to the point reached in New Zealand, where the Labour party Government nationalised the railway to the advantage of the railway system, which improved under former Prime Minister Helen Clark. I think that in this country we will also move that way pretty sharply and shortly.
	We often hear about boom and bust. Capitalism is all about boom and bust; there is no use in kidding ourselves—it booms and busts, and that is just one of its features. The odd green shoots will be on the way as we go through this recession, and perhaps a general election will move things along. We have to keep nagging the Government to make sure that we build on our strengths and reshape our futures, not only in the next six months but in the next five to 10 years—we have to have our eyes on that period as well.
	Finally, I turn to Norwich and Norfolk in the context of looking ahead and fighting for a strategy to develop the county's strengths. We need to be much more proactive. For example, as the document that I mentioned clearly states, the growth in the financial realm will probably decrease. Norwich used to be all about Norwich Union—people intermarried and all got jobs there, but things have changed. The financial sector has moved and it will move more.
	What are the chances of getting something going in my constituency's part of the world? What strengths do we have that will bring us out of the recession even faster? Norwich has a famous research park, which includes the university of East Anglia, the Norfolk and Norwich hospital and three independent institutes—the John Innes centre, the Institute of Food Research and the Sainsbury laboratory. One should not laugh, but the John Innes centre has produced purple tomatoes. They are genetically modified—we may have an argument about that, and I am sure that the issue will come up again. The tomatoes are full of anthocyanins. They are good for the health, allegedly. How do I know? When they were tried on mice, the mice lived longer. It will not be long before we will be trying them out on the Opposition. I shall bring some down and slip them into their heavy diets, because I know that their Front Benchers are worried about obesity.

Ian Gibson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now be invited to interact with the people there. Who knows? There may be package on its way to him at this moment.
	In the field of biotechnology, many exciting things are happening in Norwich, as they are across the country. It is the coming science. As the Minister for Science and Innovation in the other place, who made his name in biotechnology, has said, this part of the world, and the United Kingdom in general, is the arena where things are really going to happen. Another example is broccoli, which has chemicals called sulforophane. Using conventional plant-breeding methods, broccoli can be increased to super-broccoli status by having more of those chemicals. That has been shown in many cases to reduce rates of cancer. As Members will know, we have here a very successful and powerful all-party cancer group. Ministers come to see us, and we have a day called "Britain Against Cancer". That is now reflected in Norfolk. Patient groups attended, and we had tremendous support from right across the county. The interesting thing was that no more money was needed. We discussed the interactions between people and the innovatory ways in which they were going to deliver the services—and blow me, one week later the local hospital delivered some of them. That may have been going to happen anyway, as these things do. However, things are increasingly moving back to the localities, and we should try to reflect some of the activities that we have learned about in this place down at the local level.
	The university of East Anglia is famous for its creative writing department, with Malcolm Bradbury, Ian McEwan—the names go on and on. It has the Tyndall centre for climate change research, which is a world leader in that field. An organisation called Carbon Reduction, or C-Red, is interacting with industry to help and advise it. The university interacts with local industry in advising people about their energy needs and so on. It has helped Adnams, the great brewery. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) has left the Chamber now, but we are trying to get Adnams beer into the House, but that is difficult because it is a big name. Adnams has created the world's first carbon-neutral beer. I do not know what it does for hangovers, but the fact that it is carbon neutral is quite a success.
	As for an engineering school, UAE does not have one. About two miles down the road, there is a Lotus factory that gets involved in making cars, engineers work there, and there is Formula 1 and Snetterton race track. Young people could be stimulated to take an interest in engineering at a time when this country is crying out for engineers. We need to interact at that level with universities. If we can get that interaction with research institutes, communities and the health service, we can get it right across the board. Part of the problem with universities is that they are hooked into the research assessment exercise, the results of which come out today. Their whole lives are taken up with trying to survive a rigorous assessment system.
	We have all this biotechnological development going on in that part of the world. We have low-carbon technologies coming along, and health care products. With some initiative, we could ensure that travel, the railways and tourism expand at the same time and we become the regional hub. The social issues are part and parcel of that, and many initiatives are going on. There are groups such as Transition Norwich, where 500 people will come along to a meeting in a big hall on a Wednesday night to discuss how they can get involved with their environment and their community by having their own allotments or keeping bees. So there is a grass-roots feeling that can be tapped and I believe that that sort of community spirit—with people interacting and creating things—can sort out many problems. The local food produce schemes will be a big thing.
	Let us get the railways right and get green technology going. Broadband access has been mentioned—we still do not have a national fibre-optic cable network, and that needs to be achieved. We need a human capital strategy, whereby we work with young people, who perhaps do not go to university for three or four years, and enable them to duck out of education and come back into it. All those novel ideas exist, and we need a regional innovation strategy. However, I do not know who will deliver it.
	Norfolk is by the sea and it is blowy, but there is, as yet, no wave energy of which I am aware. There is some wind energy, and talk of turbines in the North sea and so on, but we need to get going and get zippy, and interact with firms that can build such things, as well as with other countries.
	A co-ordinated approach is the way forward. We need it for the many young people who want to set up businesses. The document that I mentioned at the outset is all about building on the strength of the creativity of our young people. Some will be writers, some will be engineers, some will be scientists and others—very few—will be politicians. However, at the end of the day, we must get resources from the organisations that work in the relevant parts of the country to push the creativity that exists. It is our strength and will be a major feature of getting out of the recession.

John McDonnell: In these debates, Madam Deputy Speaker, our whole life almost passes in front of us, but I want to concentrate on a serious issue that has come up in my constituency about the care of the residents in the residential homes owned and managed by the company Southern Cross. The story goes back two years when I was approached by relatives of parents who lived in Southern Cross care homes in my constituency and across the London borough of Hillingdon.
	A range of concerns were raised, including poor standards of care and cleanliness in the homes, lack of staff, lack of management, poor diet and lack of stimulation. I heard anecdotes of elderly people slumped in their chairs while the television was blaring. I heard about lack of respect as well as lack of care, as elderly people were spoken to in a demeaning manner. I heard about hectoring and even a bullying atmosphere was described. Anxieties were expressed at that stage about the physical security of the elderly and about the heavy manhandling of elderly people.
	I took up individual complaints with the London borough of Hillingdon and the local primary care trust, but the frequency of the complaints worried me. In June 2006, I wrote to the then chief executive of the Hillingdon Primary Care Trust to arrange a meeting with relatives to discuss the standards of care. We sat down and went through the issues together. I attended local meetings of the carers association and the Alzheimer's Society and listened to similar concerns.
	We were informed at the PCT meeting that our views would be listened to and fed back to the local council as well as the PCT itself. Despite that, I continued to receive in subsequent months individual complaints and expressions of concern about standards of care. I thus wrote to the director of social services at Hillingdon and to the chief executive of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. I enclosed a copy of a constituent's letter that outlined examples of the concerns.
	As I have said, I was still contacted too frequently by relatives of elderly people who express their concerns and I said at that stage that I was extremely worried that these people were vulnerable. I asked for the director's views on the standards of care, I told the commissioner that I was extremely worried and I suggested to the director of social services that we should have an independent review. I welcomed the commission's involvement and offered to meet Hillingdon council and the commission. I received no response from the London borough of Hillingdon, but I liaised with the commission to set up a meeting at the House of Commons at which relatives and representatives of the carers association could explain their concerns.
	We were told at that meeting that the Commission for Social Care Inspection would be inspecting Hillingdon in 2008 and that there would be an attempt to bring the inspection forward. At that stage at least, I thought that we were making some progress. I was relieved that we had at least engaged. The CSCI inspection took place in early 2008 and its report was published in March. It concluded:
	"The London borough of Hillingdon's performance in safeguarding adults was poor...Quality assurance processes in relation to adult safeguarding were underdeveloped and there were some key weaknesses... Safeguarding recording practice was generally poor"—
	and it continued like that.
	Although the report is clearly damning on the issue of safeguarding the elderly, others as well as me found it fairly superficial. It offered a weak approach and it lacked a follow-through. The commission was too willing to accept excuses, unwilling to follow through improvements and unwilling to confront providers themselves with their weaknesses. Nevertheless, I thought that we were moving on again and were on the right path to raising standards. Six to nine months later, regrettably, constituents' complaints keep coming. The examples are just the same as before: lack of physical care, lack of nutrition and so forth. One person's father was losing weight yet the home did not even have the scales to measure it.
	Because of the lack of consistent improvement, I approached one of the local councillors, Councillor John Major, who has been assiduous in raising these issues. He approached the leader of the council. We suggested an informal meeting with relatives, the carers association and Age Concern to have a chat to ensure that the leader of the council understood the concerns. The leader of the council is the council's champion for the elderly. Unfortunately, he declined the meeting. I received a note from Councillor Major saying that the leader was discussing the matter with a fellow cabinet member. It appears that the meeting proposed as a way forward was not the way in which they wanted to deal with the situation. I was disappointed by that response.
	Having got nowhere in securing redress through the leader of the council, three weeks ago I met the chief executive of the Hillingdon Primary Care Trust with my neighbour, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), and I raised the concerns at that meeting. In contrast to the council, the PCT provided me with a detailed briefing note on what was happening in the individual homes. We were informed at that point that all admissions to the homes had been suspended.
	As a result of one serious incident on 30 October, the police were called in. I will not mention individual homes because I do not want to worry my constituents any further, but in each of the homes at some stage admissions seem to have been halted by Hillingdon because of various concerns about the standards of care. There had been a litany of complaints throughout the year which had to be investigated, and when they had been investigated, further complaints arose. In one instance there were allegations that notices had been put up warning staff not to whistleblow to the Commission for Social Care Inspection.
	There seems to be a typical pattern of behaviour. When a complaint is made, the company reacts by putting in a manager from another home. Intensive efforts are made to improve the standard of care. The improvements last a few months and the manager is pulled out. At the same time, the home where the manager worked previously deteriorates. The cycle has been going on year after year. While I was being briefed by the primary care trust, local Councillors Anthony Way and John Major insisted on a briefing from council officers. That reiterated exactly the same complaints—lack of staff, lack of training, lack of record keeping, lack of respect for the elderly, health care issues and lack of communication throughout.
	The question for me is why the situation of continuous complaints has been allowed to happen, with the evident risk to elderly people. One reason, I have discovered, is that the council did not have the staff in place to commission and monitor the contracts awarded to Southern Cross. I have had sight of a letter from a council officer that confirms that there should have been five staff in place. Last year there was only one. The council recruited four staff, but two of those took redundancy, so there are only two members of staff. The council did not have the staff to monitor the contracts, find out what was going on, decide on appropriate action and take that action.
	A second reason is that the council let the contract for residential care for the elderly on such a scale to Southern Cross over a 10-year period that Southern Cross has a virtual monopoly in Hillingdon. The council closed down its own homes and has very little alternative accommodation in the private sector, so Southern Cross has the council over a barrel. Southern Cross has become one of the largest providers of care for the elderly in the country. It is ruthless in the pursuit of profits. To gain a market share, I believe it has introduced loss leaders and maximised its profits by cutting staff, cutting wages and failing to invest in the basic services of those establishments.
	I read a recent report in  The Times on Southern Cross standards, which was informed by numerous comments by employees and former employees confirming the report's headline, "filth and abuse in care home." Earlier this year the company was on the point of financial collapse and I believe it made even more cuts in its service delivery. I pay tribute to the hard-working staff in those homes. They are underpaid and lacking in managerial support, yet they do their best in that environment.
	There is a third reason why the scandal has been allowed to persist for so long. It is the one that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) mentioned: for too long, the needs of the elderly in our society have been ignored. They are swept to one side. The elderly do not count as much as others in our society. That must end. One small way in which we could demonstrate that they do count is by tackling Southern Cross in our local area, the London borough of Hillingdon, and nationally. I wrote 10 days ago to the Secretary of State for Health asking for Ministers to intervene as a matter of urgency in Southern Cross in the London borough of Hillingdon.
	I also think there is a need for a wider review of the way in which we treat and care for the elderly, however, particularly in the privatised sector. We cannot sit back and let elderly people be put at risk in this way. There has been case after case in my constituency of what I consider to be severe neglect, and as I said, the police have been called to one home to investigate the physical abuse of an elderly person by the staff.
	Members have mentioned the case of baby P, which has caused distress to the nation as well as throughout the House. I give this warning: unless we take decisive action fast on the care of the elderly and elderly care standards, we shall inevitably be faced with a granny P or a granddad P. It is coming; indeed, it may well have happened in our own area as a result of the activities of Southern Cross as a poor provider of residential care for the elderly. I urge my hon. Friend the Leader of the House to go to the Secretary of State for Health and say that this is an urgent matter that needs to be addressed locally and nationally.

John Randall: As always, it is a great privilege to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). What he has said is absolutely right. As soon as possible after Christmas, I shall try to arrange a meeting between us and the leader of the authority, and we will also take up the issue with the Department. We are all very concerned about the care of the elderly, and I am afraid it is true that all too often elderly people seem to be somewhat forgotten.
	According to today's headlines about the ambulance and health services, they are at a critical point. I want to pay tribute to the ambulance service, because only last week my mother, who is 89, was taken to hospital by ambulance—thankfully, she is out of hospital now. I saw for myself the problems experienced by Hillingdon hospital, such as trolley waits. The ambulance personnel, for whom I have the highest regard, were having to wait with their charges until they could hand them over to the nursing staff, which meant long delays. While they were there, they could not be out doing what they wanted to do, and they were not taking breaks. I saw a variety of things that filled me with admiration for the work that they do, and, of course, for the staff of Hillingdon hospital.
	That experience also made me realise that, despite everything, there is still a long way to go in relation to care. Most of the people whom I happened to see in the hospital were elderly, and very frightened. Many of those who arrive there do not have relations or friends with them. The situation is very worrying, and we must look into it.
	When I was on the hospital site I met the chief executive, Mr. David McVittie. I have been very impressed by him on a number of occasions. He is always out there, walking the wards. As a retailer myself, I would describe him as a floorwalker. Staff members told me that he knew most of their names, which I considered very impressive. So it is a shame that, having said what a wonderful bloke he is, I must now say something that will irritate him slightly.
	Hillingdon hospital wants a rebuild. It is working towards that, and the Government are considering it. RAF Uxbridge is being sold off, and it would be a wonderful site on which to rebuild the hospital for not only my constituents but the whole borough of Hillingdon. In fact, it would be better for the constituents of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd). We heard this week that a new college was to open in Uxbridge, with 500 nursing students. I cannot help feeling that the two establishments should be next to each other. May I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House—whom I welcome to his position—that at some stage we should get the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence together to discuss what I think is a wonderful opportunity? I have been told that it is not possible to use the RAF Uxbridge site for reasons involving foundation trust status and all sorts of interesting financial things, but I cannot help feeling that we must work around that.
	I want to say something about the RAF, because personnel from RAF Uxbridge and RAF Northolt are currently serving overseas. I am thinking of 32 Squadron in particular, but there are others serving in the Falklands, Turkey, the middle east, Afghanistan and Iraq. I pay tribute to them and their families.
	I was contacted recently by a wonderful serving warrant officer, who told me the one thing that he was concerned about while serving was the appalling state of accommodation at RAF Uxbridge. Principally because it is going to close down, there has not been much movement on improving it, but I am going to see it—I have spoken to the relevant Minister, and he has given me permission to do so. I am sure that hon. Members will want to hear about the situation there, and it is to be hoped that something can be done, because it is appalling if, while members of the armed forces are serving abroad, often in dangerous operation areas, they are worrying about the conditions their families are living in. That is a very sad state of affairs.
	I welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement today on withdrawal from Iraq. As the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), is present, I wish to tell him that the tone of the response of his leader, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), was regrettable. The right hon. Gentleman was not a Member of this House when we debated going into Iraq; many Members on both sides of the House voted against the war but it was a difficult decision—at the time, it was not black and white. The idea that the Conservative and Labour Members who voted for the war were being gung-ho is erroneous, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman might, on reflection, come to regret his tone.
	We have in our debate talked about uncertainties in many areas, and I must mention another one. My friend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) would have mentioned it, but his speech was limited to 10 minutes. He wanted to discuss Southern Cross, so I shall mention it on his behalf now. We hope to have the decision on Heathrow in January. It has been put off, but many people, not only in our constituencies but across west London, are again thinking this Christmas that next year they will be told that they have to leave their homes and that they have no future in their area.

John Randall: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman down that line, although, as he knows, I have promised to stand in front of a bulldozer, and despite the entreaties of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I think that I should bulk up a bit to make sure it is a fair contest.
	Yesterday, I was able to have a little go at the Government about the reduction in VAT from the position of being a shop owner—and shop worker, too, in fact—so I will not reiterate why it is not a good idea. At this time of year, we always talk about the emergency services and pay tribute to their staff, which is perfectly right, but we should also pay tribute to shop workers, who will have to go out there from Boxing day onwards. I can say from personal experience that customers at sale time are not always the nicest, and as we are being told on the television to barter, it is actually quite an unpleasant experience and some people get quite aggressive. I pay tribute to all of them, and I ask Members, and all our constituents, to bear in mind that the person on the other side of the counter is a human being as well.
	However, so that I do not always get accused of being like Scrooge and being miserable and Victor Meldrew-like—although I must admit that I said Scrooge was a disgrace, because he gave in at the end—let me say something on the jolly side of things. I went to a performance of "Hot Mikado" by Bishopshalt school. We all go to lots of such events, and it might be invidious to mention just one, but when we see how well children perform in such school productions—they put everything into them, and give so much joy to themselves and many others—we realise that it is all worth it, and that young people, apart from the tiny minority whom we mostly talk about here in this place, are a great tribute to their own generation.
	I have received some wonderful letters from pupils at Highfield primary school, who came to the House on an educational visit. After I had seen them, they wrote to me asking me to come to the school—I cannot quite understand why, but perhaps they thought I look like Father Christmas. Interestingly, some of them said they were interested in hearing about the role of an MP because they want to be an MP. Despite what we hear—the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) mentioned some wonderful things, but, sadly, I do not even have a link from the luddite website—if we just talk to people about politics it can be made interesting, and that will get them involved.
	Finally, I wish everyone a happy Christmas. I wish a happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the other Deputy Speakers, to Mr. Speaker, to all the staff and to the civil servants who work in the Opposition Whips Office, who have to put up with us and do so admirably. This is perhaps not following protocol, but I wish a happy Christmas to one person who, more than anyone else, allows me to do my job to the best of my ability. I am talking about my wife, and I thank her.

Kerry McCarthy: I want to say a few words about welfare reform. I had hoped to deliver this speech during Monday's debate on the Queen's Speech, but after hours of sitting on the Benches, and as the time available got shorter and shorter, it seemed that it would not be possible to do justice to the subject. I suspect that will be the case again today, so I offer just some preliminary thoughts.
	What concerns me at the moment is the criticism of the Government's proposals coming from two, probably opposite, sides of the political spectrum. Both have quite a distorted take on what we are doing, and neither helps to take the debate forward. The criticisms do not help the people whom the welfare reform proposals are intended to help. A great deal of scaremongering is going on, and some very vulnerable people could be distressed by it.
	The first viewpoint, to which I do not subscribe, says that the Labour Government have, by their support for the welfare state over the past 11 years, fostered a welfare dependency culture in this country. That view states that it has almost become the norm to be unemployed, people can have quite a comfortable life living on benefits and we have bred what I tend to call the Jeremy Kyle generation—other people call it the underclass—whereby people have no ambition or aspiration, and there are inter-generational cycles of poverty and worklessness. That has most recently been thrown into the spotlight by the cases of baby P and Shannon Matthews, where the parents or adults involved have been presented as typical examples of the people who have been bred by that sort of culture.
	The other take on our proposals is that the Government have become bullies. People say that we are almost dragging people from their sickbeds, and that we are forcing people who have very serious disabilities and mothers who have just given birth down to the job centre to take on work that might be completely unsuitable with the threat of benefits being taken away if they do not comply. Neither view is helpful, and I shall say a bit more about that in a moment.
	The other thing that surprises me is the number of people who seem to regard what the Government have been saying lately as something of a departure from what we have been doing since we were elected in 1997. It has been said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was entrusted with thinking the unthinkable, but the Government subsequently lost their nerve and did not go down that path. These welfare reform proposals are very much a continuation of what we have been trying to do since 1997—helping people to make the transition from welfare into work. It is frustrating to have to reiterate that in this debate, but I wish to reiterate it briefly.
	First, our approach is about the financial side of things: ensuring that people would be better off in work, which involves measures such as tax credits and the minimum wage. Secondly, it is about being able to facilitate working, which means making affordable child care available to people, having flexible working so that people can juggle their other responsibilities and giving the necessary personalised support and encouragement to job seekers through things such as the new deal and Jobcentre Plus.
	I met Jobcentre Plus staff in Bristol last Friday. We talked in detail about what would really help the welfare reform proposals to work, and we found that it comes down to small things, such as the availability of child care. One of the things that those staff told me—I have been banging on about poor public transport in Bristol ever since I got elected—is that the most important thing for those people, and for lone parents in particular, is how close to the schools and how close to their home the jobs are. People do not want to travel for longer than 20 minutes or half an hour, because when someone is on a tight schedule and they have to drop the kids off at school, go to work for a few hours and then get back to the school gates to pick the kids up or get to the childminders' place, having to use unreliable, expensive buses or having to travel to the other side of the city means that things do not stack up for them.
	As we introduce personalised support, it is important to remember that it is not about a back-of-the-envelope calculation that someone would be financially better off back at work, because work has to fit into their lives and be practicable and doable. Otherwise, people will try working, give up and fall foul of the new sanctions regime, and their children will be the ones to suffer.
	The Government deserve credit for approaching this issue in terms of not only adults who are already in the system, but children. We hear a lot about apathetic, good-for-nothing youth, but I have met phenomenal young people in my constituency, and they certainly were not born with silver spoons in their mouths. I was at an awards ceremony in Bristol the other day for young achievers. They do community work and make a real difference to people's lives through their voluntary activity. Part of that is down to changes in the school system. One of my sisters has three children and has just returned from living in Spain. It is amazing to talk to her kids, because they cannot believe that the schools in Kent that they now attend have laptops, interactive whiteboards and independent learning. In Spain, the schools are much like they were when I was at school, with learning by rote, copying things off a blackboard and no stimulation or incentive to take an interest in what is being learned. They have only been back a few months, so the feeling may wear off, but at the moment they are delighted to go to school.
	I have many sisters, and I could probably keep the debate going until 6 o'clock talking about various aspects of their lives, but one of them has two sons, one aged 18 and one aged six—quite a gap. She tells me that the difference between when the 18-year-old started school and when the six-year-old started school is phenomenal. She has seen the years of change under this Labour Government, which shows that we have made a real difference and that what we have done is working.
	However, we still have a long way to go. I was struck by what one of the Jobcentre Plus staff said to me on Friday. I presented her with a Remploy regional award for her work with people with disabilities—she went on to win the national award, too. Her name is Julia, and she talked to me about people who have been put on the new employment support allowance regime since October. She said:
	"Only one of them doesn't want to work—and he will by the time I've finished with him."
	That might sound like a threat, but it was not. She knows that people are sometimes very nervous when they come to see her. People think that they cannot possibly work, that their disabilities or illness are too great, that they have not worked for years and that they have no qualifications or skills. She knows that she can work with people like that and, with support, encouragement and the right training courses, she can help to turn their lives around. She is not a box-ticker or a bureaucrat, nor is she interested in forcing people into work just for the sake of saying that she has met her targets, but she is passionately devoted to her work. I met some of her colleagues who are working on the new deal for lone parents, and I was impressed by just how seriously they take their work. They welcome what the Government are doing.
	People talk about an underclass. In one way, I am reluctant to dwell on this issue, because the danger is that it distorts the picture of the majority of those on benefits or who rely on the welfare state as a safety net, the vast majority of whom want to work. It is easy to present a stigmatised and stereotypical image of a lone parent, but the truth is that only 2 to 3 per cent. of lone parents are teenagers, and only 15 per cent. have never been married to or lived with the father of their child.
	We cannot deny that some families have a multitude of problems and lead dysfunctional and chaotic lives. We need to look at them almost as a separate category, because they will not benefit to such an extent from the new proposals. We have to consider, for example, family intervention projects—we have Sure Start, and the Home Office has a family intervention project. The danger is of being accused of interfering too much in people's lives, but when such families have children, the problems can be passed on to them multiplied tenfold, so we have a responsibility to intervene.
	The issue is not about judging people by their family structures, which is very wrong. We can talk about whether marriage is the best state in which to bring up children, but we must accept that many people do not grow up in that sort of situation. I do not judge people by whether their parents are married to each other, cohabiting or divorced, or by whether they live with a single parent or stay with their dad at weekends. We should judge people by their relationships, their parenting, their values and their behaviour. I do not think that the financial levers in the welfare reform Bill are enough. We need to have a good hard look at what else we can do to break the cycle with those people.
	I do not think that Karen Matthews is at all typical of the single parents out there. We have to tell people over and over again that she is not typical, because otherwise it will undermine the whole consensus on which the welfare state is built. However, I do not think that we can turn our backs on people like that and just write them off, either.
	I just have time to say merry Christmas to everybody, especially you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to be able to catch your eye in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Christmas and new year are a good time of year to reflect on what has happened in the last year and to make resolutions for the next year.
	This year has been a very mixed year for my constituents and in the few minutes I have available, I want to concentrate on the loss of services in rural areas. Indeed, the Government's own Commission for Rural Communities estimates that about one in five people live in rural areas, of whom half live in small rural towns. It also states that between 2004 and 2007, life in rural areas compared with that in urban areas has declined. Indeed, its director for analysis, Nicola Lloyd, said:
	"A decline in rural services such as post offices and shops continues to concern rural communities and this makes life even more difficult for people who are deprived who are often unable to afford to travel to reach the services and support they need."
	As my speech will show, it is very difficult for those who are vulnerable and who lack basic services and public transport, particularly elderly people, to live in rural areas.
	The demographics in my constituency have been particularly sharp in relation to recent Government policy. The number of young people in the Cotswolds is declining and in that respect the Government's spending on education is particularly worrying. We have a lot of small rural schools and when the local education authority is at the bottom of the expenditure league per pupil, it makes those schools difficult to sustain. Indeed, I think it is very unfair that a child of equivalent family, degree of vulnerability and IQ is substantially disadvantaged in terms of funding from the Government simply because of their postcode. Let me quote the recent figures from the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Spending per pupil for children aged between three and 19 in Hackney in 2005-06, the latest year for which figures are available, was £6,740. In the Cotswolds, the figure was only £3,980. That is almost half. For that to be the case for an equivalent child just because of their postcode is not fair.
	That inequity was perpetuated over the past 10 years because whereas Hackney received a 39.8 per cent. increase over that time, the Cotswolds received only a 36.8 per cent. increase. The inequality was therefore perpetuated and in the recent  Telegraph league table, published in January, Gloucestershire was cited as 16th out of 149 LEAs. In other words, it was one of the nearest to the bottom. If Gloucestershire were even brought up to the average, that would mean another £200 per pupil. As many of my primary schools have pointed out to me, that £200 would make a huge difference to how they can spend.
	In Gloucestershire we are finding—the figures from the Department of Children, Schools and Families prove this—that the number of statements issued in schools has declined over the past 10 years. The number of children with special needs has increased, but more worryingly the increase has come at secondary level. In other words, people who need special assistance and who need statementing are not being picked up at an early enough stage. I have seen several cases recently where parents have tried to get their children special needs help or statementing and have had a huge difficulty in doing so. Even parents with very poor levels of income have had to go and get their own private educational and psychological reports in order to be able to prove their case. I do not think that that is acceptable.
	While there are fewer children as a proportion of the population in our constituencies, at the other end of the scale there are more pensioners. One of the scandals in this country is that 1.3 million pensioners do not claim pension credit, and the total loss is £2 billion, or about £13 a week for each pensioner who does not claim. About two thirds of all eligible pensioners claim pension credit and council tax benefit, while almost 90 per cent. of those eligible claim housing benefit. The Department for Work and Pensions needs to look at the matter, as it is unacceptable in our society today that we hide these benefits away. Everyone entitled to them should draw them—that should be what happens.
	I turn now to a point made by several hon. Members this morning. In this financial tsunami, as I call it, pensioners and savers are being disadvantaged by the fact that interest rates have fallen to very low levels. I do not want the Government to cite this as an Opposition expenditure pledge, but we should look at introducing special measures for pensioners. For instance, pensioner bonds could be delivered through the Post Office, thus giving pensioners a better deal and providing more work for post offices.
	In the short time that I have left, I want to say something about post offices. This year, 12 of the 32 offices in my constituency have closed—a total almost unprecedented in any other constituency—and all the closures were done purely by Government diktat, according to the criteria that had been laid down.
	One of the two post office on the outskirts of Cirencester turned over £500,000 in the month of January. It was highly profitable, yet both offices were still closed. Now, 19,000 people all have to get into their cars—or try to use non-existent public transport—to get to the centre of the town. The 21 villages that they live in cover 100 square miles, so the decision to close the two post offices on the outskirts of Cirencester was absolutely crazy.
	On behalf of the Conservative party, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) welcomed the Government's recent announcement on the Royal Mail. I also welcomed it, but I do not approve of some of the changes that have been made over the past couple of weeks. As I do every year, I visited the sorting office in Cirencester last week to wish my postmen a happy Christmas, but they were a relatively unhappy lot because of the reduction in the amount of overtime and the higher targets that have been set. I have no problem with those changes, which have been made in the interests of efficiency, but it is unacceptable to introduce them—and thus make people miserable— just before Christmas.
	Yesterday, I heard that my Royal Mail sorting office in Wotton-under-Edge is to close. I shall meet representatives of Royal Mail tomorrow but, again, why did the decision have to be announced within a week of Christmas? It only adds to the misery of the people who will lose their jobs, and I hope that Royal Mail will do its level best to find everyone new employment in adjoining sorting offices.
	I want to make a few brief remarks about railway services in my area. One piece of good news is that the capacity of the Cotswold line is to be doubled, something for which I have campaigned successfully with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). However, although a better economic case can be made for it, there will be no doubling of capacity on the line between Swindon and Kemble. As one of the most cost-effective schemes in the south-west, it would have joined the cities of Swindon, Cheltenham and Gloucester at a cost of only £38 million. Connectivity would have been much improved, and the doubling of that line must be achieved to ensure that Gloucestershire's economic growth and prosperity are to be maintained.
	I turn now to the announcement of the Government's U-turn on doctor's dispensary surgeries made by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope). It is extremely welcome to my constituents but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said, people should not have been put through so much anxiety for so long. A further anxiety is that the new super-surgeries will put a number of my small rural doctor's surgeries at risk. Again, I hope that the Government will not keep elderly and vulnerable people in anticipation for too long: if there are to be changes, let us make them quickly, as there is no need to keep people in suspense for months and months.
	I hope that the Government will give rural areas very careful consideration. People think that the Cotswolds are rich and rosy, and in many ways they are. It is a superb place to live, but there are 110 villages and 11 market towns in my constituency and there are pockets of vulnerable, elderly and poor people in every one. They need just as much help from their Government as anybody anywhere else in this country.
	The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) is not in his place. He is chairman of the all-party beer group. I am chairman of the all-party wine group. I hope that everyone will visit their local pub. I wholly endorse that wish. When they go there, I hope that they will make the right choice and have a glass of good red burgundy instead of a glass of beer, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and every hon. Member will join me in wishing that everyone drinks responsibly this Christmas.
	May I at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, wish you, Mr. Speaker, the staff of the House and my own staff, who work hard day in, day out to support me, a very merry, happy Christmas and a successful new year?

Mark Williams: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I shall not go into the finer points of his speech, but we are usually on the same side on human rights in Iran—an issue to which we will return in the new year.
	I shall focus my brief comments on employment prospects in my constituency and exemplify some of the points that were made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on rurality and some of the challenges that face rural communities. He mentioned the post offices in his constituency. One of my great memories of the past year is the campaign that we fought to save 14 post office in the Ceredigion constituency. Sadly, we lost that battle. In fact, the Post Office added another one to the list. Thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who fought to save one of the post offices in Brecon, we lost another one.
	I hoped that we could value the Post Office's claim that weight would be added to the campaign to keep a post office open if it was the last shop in the village. That was the experience of five post offices in Ceredigion: they were the last retail outlets in some of the most scattered rural communities in Wales. Sadly, despite the Post Office's words and the elaborate consultation, it did not accept our argument. I believe that it did not stick to its word, and among the 15 closures, two shops have now gone, very much to the detriment of the communities concerned.
	At this time of year, we will not be short of invitations to chapels, churches and school nativity plays. There will be community spirit still in those villages, but no one can say that the spirit of community will be enhanced by the boarding up and the permanent "shut" signs in the windows of those businesses. For those of us who are involved in Post Office consultations, that is a lesson about the value that we can attribute to the words in its criteria documents.
	I was prompted to talk about the balance in Ceredigion between the public sector and the private sector by a newspaper article that was brought to my attention. It was published on 1 December in the  Daily Mail, of all papers, and the headlines were "Welcome to Soviet Britain" and "Figures reveal the Labour heartlands where half the population relies on the state for a job". Ten constituencies were listed and, perhaps to my surprise, Ceredigion featured sixth equal in that list. My constituency is not well known as part of the Labour heartland—nor is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth)—but it does boast a large number of public sector jobs.
	Some 40 per cent. of our work force are employed in the public sector in some manifestation. That is no surprise to Ceredigion. We have the national library, the funding settlement for which sadly means that the doors are often shut at weekends now, rather than open. We have two universities—Aberystwyth and Lampeter. The county council obviously covers a wide rural area—again, with a very difficult funding settlement. Of course, we have the national health service, with hospitals in Aberystwyth, Tregaron and Cardigan. However, to balance the picture, we also have the highest proportion of micro-businesses anywhere in Wales. We have an essential balance between the public and private sectors.
	At a time when private sector jobs are being lost, we are also feeling the pinch in the public sector as well. The announcement of the closure of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs office in Aberystwyth was a body blow, not least because half way through the consultation, we felt that we had been successful in keeping at least some of the jobs in the compliance section, which was to remain open, albeit with a reduced staff. The expected loss of a further 20 high-skilled jobs at a factory that I visited yesterday—Protherics—in a very rural part of the county at Ffostrasol was a bitter blow. To some people, the loss of 20 jobs may not seem particularly significant, but in a sparsely populated rural area, the effect will be magnified enormously for the local community. On the same day on which those jobs were lost at Protherics, it was announced that hundreds of jobs were lost at Hoover in Merthyr Tydfil. Our sympathy goes out to the people affected.
	The point that I want to get across to the House is that rural communities face incredible difficulties. When such decisions are made by people sitting in London or Cardiff—or indeed, in the current climate, in New York or Paris—with their spreadsheets in front of them, do they really understand the implications of some of them for the broader rural community? Ceredigion and West Wales and the Valleys are a convergence funding area—convergence funding follows on from the old objective 1 money—in recognition of the deprived nature of the economy. We are also a Communities First area because of the rural deprivation in many wards across the county.
	In the short time available to me, I want to consider the tax office in Aberystwyth. The decision that was taken was a great shock to us in the county. If there is any glimmer of hope—any door that can be pushed open—I hope that the deputy Leader of the House will pursue it with his colleagues. We are talking about highly skilled jobs that are really needed in the rural economy. I would particularly like to make the Government aware of the disappointment felt by HMRC staff about the advice on possible redeployment offered to them by their personnel department. The impact assessment relating to Crown buildings in Aberystwyth said:
	"Opportunities may exist to transfer to other Government Departments and HMRC has a support package of measures, both financial and personal, to facilitate such transfers. Other Government Departments located in the area include"—
	we are talking about Ceredigion, in Wales—
	"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs...Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills...Department for Transport".
	Those Departments do not function in Wales, let alone Ceredigion. Many of my constituents felt insulted by the insensitive way in which they were furnished with a UK-wide document as they heard the news that they were about to lose their jobs.
	Of course, any closures are regrettable, but we have real fears for HMRC about future service delivery—fears that may yet be realised. I encourage hon. Members to look at a map of HMRC offices; they will see that HMRC will be void of any presence in Powys, most of rural Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion. The exception is the sparsely manned advice centres. When I had a meeting with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and his officials, I was told that a couple of outreach workers will cross Offa's Dyke from England to resolve any problems as they arise. That is completely unacceptable.

Andrew Pelling: I shall certainly follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Like my colleagues, I should like to wish everyone, particularly the staff who have been so supportive to me in difficult times, a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year.
	Given that Father Christmas—not necessarily the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)—is due shortly, it is tempting to say what I want for Christmas. I want many things for Christmas. I am grateful for having been called to speak, incidentally, given that I have an Adjournment debate on Sri Lanka after this debate.
	I have many aspirations for my constituency. There has been a change to railway timetables on the main line from Brighton through East Croydon to London. The authorities have had the problem of shuffling the pressures on that line. That has been particularly difficult because the Gatwick Express dominates track space while being poorly used, and therefore discriminates significantly against the interests of commuters in south London.
	One of the impacts of providing additional priority for rail users south of East Croydon has been a withdrawal of the important service that runs eventually from East Croydon to Crystal Palace. That is because of the removal of services from Smitham to London Bridge, particularly in the day time. There is an irony in the reductions, given that at the same time we have had the upsetting news that the Greater London authority has decided not to progress the extension of the tram link to Crystal Palace. Those two pieces of news are a double blow for Croydon and Crystal Palace.
	I suggest that one way of finding the cheapest solution for making provision is to reopen what was platform 7 at Norwood Junction station. That would mean that there was a new turn-back facility for trains, which would be able to go to Crystal Palace and Victoria from Norwood Junction. The railway authorities estimated that that would cost just £10 million. The issue exercises many MPs with constituencies to the north of Croydon, Central. I am grateful for the great deal of support that I have had, particularly from Labour Members of Parliament, on that issue. I am also pleased to work with the Conservative council in Croydon, the Labour party in Croydon, Ken Livingstone and the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) to campaign to keep the issue of the Croydon tram link very much on the agenda.
	I am afraid to say that as a child it was possible for me to dream of the most generous of presents, and I am going to name one or two more that would be appropriate for Croydon before finishing early to allow other Members sufficient time to contribute. If there is to be significant fiscal stimulation through capital spend by the Government, every opportunity should be taken to act not only to improve public sector provision but to act in an intelligent and stimulating way towards local economies to bring in private sector participation.
	For a long time, the key gateway site next to East Croydon station has been undeveloped. That is partly because there were, unfortunately, some foolish approaches by Croydon council, which backed only one developer on its proposal for an arena site, which I am glad to say that the Minister concerned decided, with extremely good judgment, not to support, after several appeals. We are left with a site that many people who travel to Gatwick or the south coast will have seen to be completely empty and undeveloped for the past 35 years.
	One way in which that site could be developed is through public sector involvement. I would like Croydon's very limited Mayday university hospital site in Thornton Heath, which many residents to the south of Croydon are reluctant to use, to be replaced with a development on the East Croydon site. That would also allow for the provision of appropriate public sector-supported housing for nurses. Many people from across south London could reach that site with a great deal of convenience. At the moment, constituents coming from the east of East Croydon have to use two bus routes to attend that hospital. That is not appropriate for people who are ill or old and frail.
	I express a final wish in my remaining 14 seconds. There is a huge bottleneck on the rail system at East Croydon. Ultimately, we need an extra two platforms so that all these capacity issues can be dealt with appropriately.

Stewart Jackson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a very important matter in the House—the worsening security situation in Israel and the Gaza strip. I shall focus particular attention on the plight of Corporal Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage by the terrorist Hamas movement for two and a half years.
	Since Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza in August 2005, 5,128 rockets and mortar shells have been fired into southern Israel, and since 2001 24 people have been killed and 620 injured. One hundred and fifty rockets have been launched in the past six weeks alone, and 17 just yesterday, which is despite a truce negotiated through the Egyptian Government that came into effect on 19 June this year. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was a courageous act based on a desire for a long-term negotiated peace and for the self-determination of the Palestinian people through a viable and secure Palestinian state.
	Regrettably, the leaders of Hamas remain wedded to a vile Islamist ideology and the creation of an Islamic state secured by violence and the eradication of the state of Israel. Since the withdrawal, 150 Hamas operatives have completed so-called training courses in Iran, and 600 have received instruction by Iranian operatives in Syria, which is unacceptable to the international community. Hamas continues to smuggle weapons into Gaza through a vast network of tunnels on the Gaza-Egypt border and to broadcast jihadist propaganda on Hamas TV. Specifically, they refuse to comply with the three Quartet principles, making progress in talks with Israel all but impossible.
	I want to revert to the plight of Gilad Shalit. Hon. Members know the cause of the Lebanon war in 2006. Although most people know that the catalyst was Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers from the Israeli side of the Lebanon-Israel border, it is less well known that Hamas kidnapped an Israeli corporal, Gilad Shalit. At 5.40 am on 25 June 2006, in an attack on the kibbutz Kerem Shalom in Israel, two soldiers were killed, four others were wounded and Corporal Shalit was captured. The terrorists had infiltrated the kibbutz through a tunnel from Rafah. The Hamas leadership authorised and spearheaded the attack, taking full responsibility for the raid and praising the terrorists as heroes of the Palestinian people.
	As we know, Hezbollah subsequently murdered the two soldiers in Lebanon. Their bodies were given back to Israel in return for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, one of whom, Samir Kuntar, a vicious child murderer, was recently given the order of merit by the Syrian regime. I am delighted that the evident disgust of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), comes through in his written answer to me, dated 17 December. I know that Foreign Office Ministers have taken up the matter informally with Syria.
	In more than 900 days of captivity, Gilad Shalit has not been allowed visiting rights or even access to any humanitarian organisations. Despite repeated demands from the International Committee of the Red Cross, Hamas has refused him the most basic human rights. Hamas has flagrantly violated every aspect of international law, including humane treatment of their prisoner, his family's right to know of his well-being and permitting humanitarian access.
	On 16 June 2006, Shalit's captors offered to release him if Israel agreed to free all female Palestinian prisoners and all prisoners under 18. More recently, Hamas, Egypt and Israel have come to a standstill on the terrorist group's demand for the release of 1,400 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit. Last week, Israel released 200 out of a list of 450 men that Hamas submitted. To date, Israel has freed 450 prisoners in return for the 22-year-old serviceman.
	On 25 June 2007, the Israeli human rights organisation, B'Tselem, issued a statement that,
	"international humanitarian law absolutely prohibits taking and holding a person by force to compel the enemy to meet certain demands, while threatening to kill or harm the person if the demands are not met".
	To assist Corporal Shalit and put pressure on Hamas to grant Red Cross access, parliamentarians throughout Europe are leading campaigns to highlight his case. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who yesterday lobbied the Red Cross to ensure that humanitarian access for Gilad Shalit remains high on its agenda.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire launched the European-wide initiative at an international conference in November in Paris and has led the campaign with the Red Cross. Hamas is keen to convince the Red Cross that it is a force with which to be negotiated. However, in reality, it behaves barbarically and flagrantly flouts the most basic tenets of international law. Burning effigies of Corporal Shalit and barring even the Red Cross is symbolic of the activities of a terrorist organisation, not a movement that genuinely seeks a just settlement for the Palestinian people.
	Indeed, far from trying to make moves towards peace, the Hamas leader in Syria, Kahlid Mashal, has declared that the ceasefire will end on 19 December—in a few days. That means that Israeli towns such as Sderot, which lies just outside Gaza, will again be subject to intense daily missile bombardment.
	As we approach Christmas and Chanukah, many people throughout Europe and the middle east are working for the release of Corporal Shalit. By doing that, we hold up a standard for humanitarian and civilised values. The campaigns might help the Red Cross gain the access that this Israeli hostage deserves, and be a small step on the road to achieving a just and peaceful settlement and the goal of an enduring two-state solution in the middle east. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House encourages his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to continue their efforts.
	In the meantime, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish you and all the Officers and staff of the House a wonderful and restful Christmas, and a successful and prosperous 2009.

Richard Bacon: I wish to raise my concerns over allegations that institutionalised fraud took place at the former Manchester college of arts and technology, better known as MANCAT. Many unanswered questions remain, and I feel that the matter is relevant for two reasons: first, that further education colleges are calling for increased powers of self-regulation; and secondly, that the new Manchester college created by the merger of MANCAT and City college is run largely by former MANCAT senior management.
	To recap, allegations were made by several members of staff at MANCAT relating to the falsification of paperwork such as student registers and additional learning support forms, which, it was said, enabled the college to obtain extra money from the further education body, the Learning and Skills Council. Following my last speech on this subject, I submitted written questions on 2 June to the LSC chief executive, Mark Haysom. I was keen to know why MANCAT kept a secondary system of registers, not produced or signed by tutors, on which to base funding claims, but I received no explanation.
	One of my main concerns was the wholesale destruction of auditable documents by the college, which thwarted inquiries by the LSC's own investigator into the allegations. The documents included, among much else, original registers compiled by tutors. I asked Mr. Haysom who was responsible, who authorised the destruction, how long it had been going on, exactly what had been destroyed and why MANCAT had informed auditors that it had kept records for the requisite six years when it had not done so. I also asked whether any sanctions had been taken against MANCAT when it was discovered that the records had been destroyed. I received no answers to those questions. All that I was told by Mr. Haysom was:
	"Failure to maintain and keep appropriate records was one of the issues taken very seriously by the LSC in subsequent dialogue with the college aimed at tightening and improving the college's audit systems".
	In many spheres of work, destroying auditable documents would merit dismissal from post, but I am not aware of any senior managers at MANCAT having been sacked, nor am I aware of any disciplinary proceedings being taken against them. Indeed, the core of its senior management team, including the principal, Peter Tavernor, and the deputy principal, Barbara Forshaw, now run the new Manchester college, which was formed in August 2008. It is one of the two biggest further education colleges in the country, with an estimated annual turnover of £130 million.
	Shortly after my Adjournment debate speech of 22 May, I received a confidential letter from someone working in Manchester's FE sector, telling me:
	"It is well worth pursuing your enquiries and a lot of people in Manchester would be greatly heartened by any public enquiry or investigation".
	The writer also said:
	"There is a great deal of nervousness regarding the forthcoming merger."
	Information has come to light about how the new Manchester college is being run, and it gives me cause for concern. One aspect is that several capable former members of MANCAT's administration staff, who left MANCAT years ago and joined City college because they were unhappy about MANCAT's record keeping, have now, following the merger, been made redundant at the new institution and asked to sign confidentiality agreements—better known as gagging clauses—as a condition of receiving the redundancy payments to which they are entitled. It is also my understanding that some of these staff had witnessed malpractice at MANCAT, namely the manipulation of student numbers. Students who had left part-way though a course remained on the database, and the college had continued to claim funding for them throughout the academic year. The Public Accounts Committee has long deplored the use of public money and gagging clauses to prevent people from revealing abuses in the workplace. That approach was routinely used by management at MANCAT to silence potential whistleblowers, which I raised in the Adjournment debate on May 22. It would appear that this pattern is continuing at the new college.
	Moreover, it is my understanding that the acutely sensitive posts of head of student records and head of management information systems at Manchester college are now being run by a husband and wife team with a close personal connection to the principal of the college, Peter Tavernor. It is the job of one or other of those employees to validate and audit data on which funding claims are based. I am not stating there has been impropriety, but surely that arrangement cannot be ideal, bearing in mind that there are so many unanswered questions surrounding Mr Tavernor's former college.
	I believe that the public have long been denied the rigorous investigation at MANCAT that they deserve. Mr. Haysom has made it clear that the Learning and Skills Council has no appetite for a further investigation, because the crucial records that constituted potential evidence have been destroyed, and because the events occurred several years ago. All that remains highly relevant, however, not only because the new Manchester college is largely being run by senior MANCAT personnel, but because the FE sector as a whole is calling for further self-regulation.
	According to the Association of Colleges website, a system is envisaged that will be
	"characterised by a reduction in the regulatory demands placed on providers and single ownership of the regulatory framework facilitated by the single voice".
	In so far as that tortuous sentence makes sense at all, I think that it means that it believes that FE colleges should be trusted to run their own affairs without too much scrutiny or interference from outside. It goes on:
	"We envisage a self-regulation system in which providers"—
	that is to say, colleges—
	"become respected and trusted partners of Government by recognising their statutory responsibilities and their accountability for the effective delivery of national policy and the efficient use of public funds".
	I particularly note the word "trusted", as trust was conspicuously absent in MANCAT's relationship with its former external auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was called in to investigate after a former lecturer raised concerns about the manipulation of student registers. Six months after that exercise, PricewaterhouseCoopers resigned, and the PWC partner, Lee Childs wrote to Peter Tavernor, stating:
	"Frankly, I do not believe it possible to audit effectively without trust on both sides".
	I am aware that MANCAT has always refuted allegations of fraud and malpractice even though detailed allegations of manipulated paperwork surfaced independently from different individuals in unconnected departments. After my last Adjournment debate speech, I received indignant letters from two MANCAT governors claiming that the allegations had always been unsubstantiated. They informed me that since those events the college has had an Ofsted inspection and an LSC review of its financial governance systems with exemplary results and that its maintenance of student records had been described by PricewaterhouseCoopers as a model of good practice.
	I have no doubt that much good work has been done at MANCAT, but I am also mindful that in 2002 it had had its previous Ofsted inspection just as allegations began to surface. A grade 1, which is "outstanding", was awarded to the English for speakers of other languages department, but it subsequently emerged in signed statements from several former staff that that department was allegedly riddled with the sort manipulation that I have described.
	Several tutors in ESOL and in the department of computer imaging were pressed to alter the registers on which funding was based. One tutor in computer imaging was reported as saying:
	"If students were absent, we had to mark them with a zero, which meant they did not attend; did not contact college...The student would be withdrawn after three zeros, but I was told not to mark students who ceased to attend with a zero. It was explained to me that if a student were to be withdrawn before a certain benchmark date, the college would lose funding...I was told by a divisional leader to mark a student who had ceased to attend as being off with 'authorised absence' or AA in the register. I was very uneasy about this; I put A, or absent and from then on photocopied my registers each week".
	Another former tutor in the ESOL department told of registers being altered after they had been handed into the departmental head, Marina Parha:
	"Names unfamiliar to the class teacher had appeared and in some cases existing students had been marked present when they had, in fact, been absent...On showing my own registers to Marina Parha in the first term of the academic year 2001-02, I was asked by her what all the zeros were for. When I explained they indicated student absences, she replied: 'I don't like all those zeros—we'll have to do something about that'. In a subsequent meeting, she told me to change some of the zeros to ticks for a few weeks. I did not argue and neither did I alter my registers."
	I refer to what one former ESOL lecturer said in a statement prepared for a colleague who intended to take MANCAT to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. The lecturer said that
	"in a meeting just before the Ofsted inspection at the end of April 2002... Marina Parha—who was in charge of ESOL at Mancat—announced to the teachers that the department had achieved a student retention rate of 100 per cent."
	The statement continues:
	"Those present were stunned by what she said—we were, after all, the teachers of the classes and we knew that it was common for students to leave, sometimes without any warning, in the middle of their courses. It was common knowledge in the department that she had amended our registers to create a false impression of student retention."
	The former lecturer went on to say that he had been asked by a team leader to
	"mark my absent students as present on my class register, in order (so she said) to avoid such absences casting a negative light on my performance as a teacher. I refused to do this."
	He described a conversation he had had with a colleague who had been sacked:
	"I found out that he had been subjected to pressure into signing misrepresentative documents and had refused to do so. Marina Parha seemed to revel in her ability to deceive. She actually boasted to the teachers in a meeting how she was going to give an incorrect picture to the Ofsted inspector during the inspection".
	He then described how Ms Parha said she would do this by carefully selecting files that showed the level of students' work in a good light.
	The colleague wrote in a statement that Ms Parha was
	"contemptuous about the inspection process at Wednesday evening staff meeting. She was pleased we had only one inspector... who knew absolutely nothing about ESOL."
	He then described how Ms Parha told staff she wanted as many groups of students as possible to go out on trips during the week of the inspection, and
	"focus his attention on certain classes".
	He went on:
	"I believe it is legitimate to speculate that the inspector's exposure to the reality of the department was carefully controlled and that he was not given a full picture of the classes, teaching, administration or staff morale within it."
	Ms Parha has continued to thrive since her department gained its grade 1: she is now head of department for language support at the Manchester college, but I would suggest that the Ofsted exercise of 2002 gives food for thought about how far such inspections can be relied upon to give a true picture. I also suggest that all those events should make the Secretary of State cautious about granting further education the increased self-regulation that it so strongly desires.
	May I wish everyone a happy Christmas?

John Mason: I do not think I can speak quite as fast as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon). Many subjects have been mentioned in the debate so far. It is an appropriate time of year to talk about the middle east, but I would prefer us to be peacemakers in the middle east, rather than taking one side or the other.
	Christmas is a time of good will and an opportunity to thank people, so I take the opportunity of this speech to thank both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats for introducing the highly successful proportional representation system in Scotland. I am doubly appreciative because we have it both in the Parliament and in the councils, especially in Glasgow. I have to accept that I have been elected under the first-past-the-post system on four occasions out of five, so I have benefited from that system, but I remain convinced that the PR system is much better.
	We have to thank Tony Blair and Donald Dewar for introducing PR for the list system for the Scottish Parliament in 1999, which has led to fairer government and greater consensus. The first two terms, of course, were coalition government. PR also opened up the opportunity for minority government. Some had reservations about that in 1999 and 2003 and no one dared try it, but now it has been tried and it works. The First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), is to be congratulated on the tremendous success he has made of that.
	The second form of proportional representation for which I am grateful is PR by single transferable vote, from which the 32 Scottish local authorities benefit. That was introduced in 2007, thanks largely to the Lib Dems, who insisted on it in 2003. In Glasgow's case that has been a huge improvement. First past the post had latterly been a total failure in Glasgow. In 2003 Labour took 71 of the 79 seats, which is 90 per cent. of the seats on only 47 per cent. of the vote. By contrast, in 2007 that was reduced to 58 per cent. of the seats, even though Labour was still in control. But the system means that representation is much closer to the actual vote and the will of the people.
	The advantage of STV is that as well as being more proportional, it maintains the strong councillor-ward link, or potentially the strong MP-constituency link. There are clearly different forms of proportional representation—the list in the Scottish Parliament, and STV in Glasgow city council and elsewhere. STV has the added bonus that the public choose both the party and the individual.
	It would be good at this time to acknowledge, as I hope all Members of the House would do, the hard work that many councillors do throughout the country. As the Member who has most recently been a councillor, I see the huge amount of work that councillors put in. They often get little support and are not well paid for that work.
	Another advantage of proportional representation is that the public prefer us to consider issues on a case-by-case basis. They get fed up with issues being pushed through by one party no matter what. PR encourages more of a shared agenda between parties. It means that we are more likely to get a result that is in tune with public opinion. Minority government takes that even further by making it essential that each individual case is looked at. It depends on how mature the Opposition tend to be. In Scotland we have seen co-operation—with the Conservative party, I must admit, which is perhaps not our expectation—on getting more police on the street. That has been a practical success of PR and STV. We have smaller class sizes—

Paul Holmes: I shall wish everyone a happy Christmas and new year now, because I shall end my speech by talking about the Iraq war, and that may not be the best context in which to wish people a happy Christmas.
	A Member who spoke earlier issued an annual invitation to Members to visit her wonderful constituency in Devon. That is a county that I know well and love, but may I invite Members to take a Christmas and new year break in my constituency? If they want outdoor activity, Chesterfield is a great base. Two or three miles down the road is the fantastic Derbyshire Peak district. People can walk on the moors, uplands and lowlands, where the scenery is absolutely beautiful. They can visit Chatsworth house, or, a couple of miles in the other direction, Bolsover castle, Hardwick hall and the National Trust's Clumber park. Those are wonderful attractions, but there is also a great deal to be seen in Chesterfield itself. People can enjoy themselves and work off the Christmas pudding and the mince pies.
	When I first lived in Chesterfield in 1979, the Chesterfield canal was a stagnant, overgrown ditch, but volunteers have renovated it, and it is now a linear green lung. It is possible to follow it from the centre of Chesterfield into the countryside. It is widely used by birdwatchers, fishers, walkers, cyclists and canal enthusiasts. The Barrow Hill engine shed is not technically in my constituency, being just over the border in the constituency of North-East Derbyshire, but it is effectively part of Chesterfield. It is one of the few working roundhouses that survive from the great steam train age, and is a very popular tourist attraction.
	In 1688, the Revolution House at Old Whittington was a small pub at the edge of a little hamlet up on the moors. That is why the Duke of Devonshire and others from across Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire who were plotting a treasonable act—the overthrow of the King in the glorious revolution of 1688—met there to plot in secret, away from prying eyes.
	Chesterfield has a wonderful old town centre with a large open-air market, which is the focal point of the town and brings in a large number of shoppers, tourists and other visitors. At one end is the parish church, the "Crooked Spire". Many Members will have seen it when travelling from one end of England to the other on the midland main line. It has a crooked corkscrew spire which both twists and leans to one side. There are seven such spires in Europe, but Chesterfield's is the one that twists and leans the most. It is a great tourist attraction: people come from throughout Europe, and even from America, specifically to see the church and the spire.
	One of the advantages of visiting Chesterfield at Christmas is the opportunity to see the Christmas lights. That brings me to a key point. Year after year, the borough council invests more money in expanding and improving the lights. Apart from putting out the Christmas message, brightening up the midwinter scene and helping people to enjoy themselves, they attract visitors to Chesterfield's wonderful town centre with its large open-air market. That brings in people who spend money and create jobs in the shops and on the market stalls.
	Unfortunately, the Labour councillors—there are a few left in Chesterfield—do not understand. They consider investing money in Christmas lights to be a strange thing to do, although it creates jobs and brings in visitors. When the Liberal Democrats took over the council in 2003, they built a new coach station which the previous council had refused point-blank even to consider. That bus station was absolutely dire. At one stage, it featured in the national press as the worst in the United Kingdom. It was such an eyesore. The Liberal Democrats built a new station, and now there are coaches. When the Christmas lights were switched on one Sunday a few weeks ago, coaches came from places as far away and as varied as Walsall and Lowestoft, each of them bringing 40 or 45 visitors to spend the day, see the lights turned on, and spend money at the market and in the pubs and restaurants in the town centre. It is all part of job creation and making the town vibrant.
	The number of lettings at the market has increased this year, while most open-air markets around the country are suffering badly. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on markets, I hear from people all over the country that open-air markets are suffering as a result of competition from shops, stores such as Primark, out-of-town shopping centres and massive car boot sales. For the first time in some years, however, the number of stall lettings at Chesterfield market has increased. The shops in Chesterfield have a 4 per cent. vacancy rate, compared to the English average of 10 per cent. They are doing very well. A recent university survey marked out Chesterfield as one of the fastest growing and improving economies in England.
	All of this brings me on to the problems local councils face when trying to invigorate and renovate their economies. They know what is most needed and wanted locally, and they are best placed to take that action, but they are often handicapped by the Government and the funding streams that the Government control. At yesterday's Prime Minister's Question Time there was a question about a council that had turned down an offer of free swimming for under-16s and pensioners. How could it be so callous as to turn down this free offer from the Government? Many councils have done that—although not Chesterfield—because the Government have, of course, not funded it. They have given out this wonderful initiative, but they have not provided all the money. Chesterfield is providing that free swimming, but it is costing us £50,000 of council tax payers' money to cover the shortfall in Government funding. That is 1.2 per cent. on council tax for Chesterfield, which is a small council. Also, this year and next year there will be the 3 per cent. Gershon efficiency savings, and next year—2009-10—there will be a 0.6 per cent. grant settlement from the Government, who provide 75 per cent. of council money; that is well below the inflation rate. Therefore, there will be more cuts. The year after that, the settlement will be 0.2 per cent. so there will be more cuts again.
	The council has to meet those settlements, but Chesterfield does so very well, as it is a well-run council. It was, in fact, on course to start expanding some services next year with the money it had set aside, but then we got the concessionary bus fares fiasco. At the start of this year, councils across the country said, "The Government are not providing enough money for this wonderful new national scheme." In Chesterfield, the guesstimate was that it would be down by about £300,000. The figures have now come in from Derbyshire county council, which is administering the scheme, and Chesterfield is expected to put in about £1.8 million to bail out the Government's scheme. As I have said, Chesterfield is a small council, and that sum amounts to 11 per cent. of its average revenue budget. It cannot afford that; it is impossible. That will devastate the council's finances. The options are to either put 36 per cent. on council tax or slash services by 11 per cent. This is happening all over the country, but according to Local Government Association figures, Chesterfield is the worst hit council in the country; Exeter and Cambridge, with a proportion of 8 per cent. of annual revenue, are the next two worst hit. The Government must backtrack on this and provide the proper funding for their scheme, as they introduced it.
	I became increasingly angry while listening to the contributions on the statement on Iraq earlier this afternoon, because Members seemed to be reinventing history. Both Labour and Conservative Members said we could forget the illegal invasion, the 300,000 civilian deaths, the breeding ground for terrorism that has been created when terrorists were not operating in Iraq before, the wrecked economy over the past five years in Iraq and the destabilisation of the Arab world, because we had had regime change, which made it okay. Iraq was never about regime change, however; that was explicitly stated by the then Prime Minister. For example, on the radio on 18 November 2002, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said:
	"I have got no doubt that the purpose of our challenge...is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. It is not regime change".
	On 30 November, he made the same basic point:
	"It is solely because of the threat"
	from weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein poses,
	"and for this reason alone",
	not regime change.
	On 25 February 2003, the then Prime Minister said in this Chamber:
	"I detest his regime...but even now, he could save it by complying"—[ Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 124]—
	with the demand for disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, which did not exist, as we all know, and as some of us could see was the case even before the illegal invasion.
	The then Prime Minister said on three occasions that it was not about regime change. Regime change is illegal under international law. If we have really adopted this policy of regime change, when are we invading Zimbabwe or Burma, or China to get it out of Tibet? This is nonsense; the Government know it is not a policy. It was just a fig leaf to disguise the fact that we were taken into an illegal war under totally false pretences and pretexts. As a citizen, I joined the 1 million other citizens, along with my youngest daughter, who was 10, to walk past the Palace of Westminster in protest at the illegal invasion that everyone could see was coming. As an MP, I took part in our process and voted against that war.
	One or two Conservative MPs have said, both following the statement and during this debate, that we should not be criticising what happened and that we should forget all that. I remember the wall of sound that came across from the Government Benches attacking us because we were opposed to the war, but I remember even more the comments that came from some Members on the Conservative Benches to my right; they were shouting about cowardice, offering white feathers, and displaying jingoism and bombast of the worst kind. As a citizen who took part in that million-person march and who voted against the war in this Chamber, I think it is unacceptable that in this afternoon's statement about pulling out British troops we did get a statement about an open inquiry into the disastrous illegal decision to invade Iraq.

Eric Joyce: I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) for making a short speech and giving me the chance to contribute for a few minutes.
	I simply wish to say a few words about UN resolution 1843 on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to which the UK Government signed up one month ago. It resolves to increase the size of the United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 17,000 to 20,000. MONUC is run by a UK citizen, Alan Doss. It was argued very strongly by the UN that there was a requirement to increase the number of troops—although 17,000 personnel are in the DRC, it is a very large country—in view of the latest phase of a civil war that is going on between two groups, the CNDP, which some people think is helped by some Rwandan citizens, and the FDLR. The FARDC, the Congolese Government troops, which are deeply ineffectual, are also involved.
	The UN has deployed to do what it can in that situation, and the UN Security Council has agreed that extra troops are required. The assessment was that it would take two months to deploy the UN's troops in the DRC, once it had found who was actually going to send 3,000 troops there. I understand that the realistic assessment now is that it will take six months to deploy them. Everyone agrees that this is an enormously urgent situation, because raping, looting and pillaging are occurring. Although a ceasefire is technically in place between the FARDC and the CNDP, the two protagonist groups—the FARDC is made up of the Government troops, but there are issues to address associated with the behaviour of all the troops involved—a great deal of fighting is still going on between groups such as the Mai-Mai and the CNDP. The civilians get caught in the crossfire and they also get targeted deliberately. Two little girls, one aged five and the other seven, were shot dead a few days ago inside a UN camp, and a series of rapes took place just outside it—rapes are used in the DRC as a weapon of war.
	May I quote two sentences from the Security Council meeting on Monday? The record states that the UK contribution
	"stressed the importance of the earliest possible deployment of the 3,000 additional personnel, as mandated by resolution 1843...however, the target of two months was a bit 'too leisurely'."
	We were saying that the deployment was taking too long. We stressed the fact that we were able to deploy much more quickly in the relatively recent case of the Lebanon. We are also told:
	"The United Kingdom stood ready to find...troop-contributing countries, to help deployments, and it stood ready to contribute both equipment and personnel, notably on the command and intelligence sides."
	The Foreign Secretary went straight out to the DRC with the French Foreign Secretary, and Lord Malloch-Brown has worked tirelessly to do something about this situation, but the fact is that, at the moment, resolution 1843 is just a piece of paper, and nothing is happening in respect of it. I do not blame any particular country, although some countries are more reluctant to contribute than others, and I certainly do not blame the UK Government, but the reality is that the totality of the effort on resolution 1843 is that nothing is happening.
	Mindful of that, Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General, has asked for an EU force to deploy to fill the gap. It is very difficult for the UK to deploy troops, because we have heavy commitments in Afghanistan, but it is equally difficult to see, at the moment, where any other countries are going to contribute any other troops. If the UK were to contribute a proportion, there would be a risk that it would end up taking on the whole task. That is the fundamental sticking point from the UK's point of view. Some countries that would like to do something cannot because they cannot secure the agreement of all the other European countries. There are historical difficulties in respect of the involvement in the region of countries such as France and Belgium, but I believe that Belgium in particular would be prepared to deploy troops to plug that gap.
	Those who know the situation there know that Goma needs to be properly stabilised. At the moment, the CNDP and General Nkunda, who commands it, could take Goma if they wished. That would be a grievous blow to the DRC and it would threaten its integrity as a country, and it would be a grievous blow to the UN. We desperately need to respect UN resolution 1843 and, in the meantime, an EU force will probably need to be involved. At the moment, it appears that although we are saying that this is terribly urgent, because all over the place women are being raped and children are being murdered, the international community is doing literally nothing at all about resolution 1843. We really must get a grip of the situation.

Shailesh Vara: May I join in with the plaudits for the Deputy Leader of the House, and wish him well on his first outing at an Adjournment debate? Given the quality of the praise given to him, I hope that he does not feel too much pressure. In any event, I am sure that he will rise to the occasion as he always does.
	We started with a knowledgeable and thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn). It clearly reflected her experience before she entered the Commons, when she worked in the social services arena. She referred to the tragedy of baby P, and we all agree that the challenge is to try to minimise risk to children. Sadly, we may have to contend with the fact that we may never be able to prevent such tragedies completely.
	The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) followed, and I disagreed with some of his comments. He said that Members were off for a long holiday, but most of us take the view that being in Parliament is part of our duties and we will be doing a lot of work in our constituencies. Although I appreciate that his party will put out a "holier than thou" press release saying that he is against this long break, I wish him a happy holiday in his constituency, while the rest of us are working in ours.
	The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) referred to a disagreement that he had with the late Gwyneth Dunwoody. I remember it well, as I was sitting here wondering how to address the argument that was going on. I give him all credit for having the courage to concede that he was wrong. I am sure that Gwyneth would have been very proud of him.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) delivered a typically powerful speech and his constituents can rest assured that they have a strong voice in this Chamber. He rightly criticised the disgraceful delay in making a final announcement on Post Office card accounts. There are still some questions that need to be answered about the millions of pounds that were squandered on the whole process, and indeed the millions of pounds that were paid to all those who put in bids but got nowhere with them.
	My right hon. Friend also highlighted the importance of the spoken word and integrity, when he recalled the Prime Minister's promise, made at the Dispatch Box, of a statement on Equitable Life before Christmas. The Prime Minister has failed to provide an explanation of why that will not happen, and nor has he apologised for promising something that has not been delivered. My right hon. Friend asked a straightforward question—why the delay—and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will answer it.
	The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) made an impassioned plea that when President-elect Obama visits the United Kingdom, he visits a pub. The hon. Gentleman is chairman of the all-party beer group, and I hope that he will bear in mind the rest of its members and that we will all be invited along to drinks with President Obama, as he will then be. May I just point out that my constituency has several excellent pubs which would be happy to host the President?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) raised several points, including some serious concerns about the local bailiff service. I was concerned to hear about the job application of one of his constituents. My hon. Friend raised some important questions about funding and the Ministry of Justice, and I hope that answers will be forthcoming.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) described himself as a "usual suspect" and, as usual, he raised several issues. In particular, he made a plea for greater awareness for diabetes, and he certainly put that on the record today. I hope that his efforts in raising that awareness will have received a big boost from his contribution today.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) raised a number of serious points about the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). My right hon. Friend rightly questioned the role of some senior Ministers, particularly the Home Secretary, and expressed considerable regret at the fact that the Speaker had proposed a Speaker's Committee that was subsequently hijacked by the Government, who put forward their own version of the Speaker's Committee. The two certainly did not match. A number of questions remain unanswered. May I point out to the Deputy Leader of the House that if he and his Government feel that the issue will simply stay in the long grass, we hope that it will not and we will persist until we get those answers?
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) brought the reality of war to our debate when she mentioned the death of Lance Corporal Mathew Ford. She asked if his mother would be able to meet with some of the relevant Ministers. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will have taken that on board and will facilitate some of those meetings. Having visited Afghanistan very recently, I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to our brave men and women who, while the rest of us are enjoying festivities over this Christmas period, will be doing anything but.
	I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) well in trying to overcome the traffic difficulties associated with Cullompton in her constituency. I hope that the Government will have heard her words about the difficulty that many people are having with the income that they rely on from interest on their savings. The Government will have heard her message about the dependency that many elderly people have on interest derived from savings, which, as we know, is increasingly declining.
	Deep discontent with his local railway line was all too clear when we heard the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). However, he went on to suggest the nationalisation of the railway industry. As far as I am aware, that was not in the Queen's Speech, but perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House would like to confirm that we have not just had a Labour Back Bencher giving us a Christmas leak of some sort.
	It is not often that I find myself in agreement with a Lib Dem Member, but the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) will have had considerable sympathy from many Members when she spoke about the misery of some of her constituents in dealing with the tax credit system.
	I am sure that the House will have been appalled to hear about the treatment in Southern Cross residential care homes, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I wish the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) well in trying to get urgent redress for those elderly people who are suffering. I also hope that the strong message that my hon. Friend tried to convey to the chief executive of Hillingdon hospital will have been heard. On behalf of us all, I wish my hon. Friend's mother well, as I know that she has recently been unwell.
	The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) threatened to talk at length about her sisters and their lives but thought better of it. She spoke, however, in more serious terms when she referred to the underclass in our society, which is something that has been in the media a lot recently. I hope that she will agree with the hard work that has been put in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and the Centre for Social Justice, with which he has been working so diligently.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) spoke, rightly, of the numerous problems facing those who live in rural areas. That is an ongoing issue and those of us who have rural constituencies will have much sympathy with what they had to say.
	As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) raised a number of issues. He was absolutely right to point out the dire straits that our economy is in as well as the tragedy of Zimbabwe.
	The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) spoke of the need for another platform at East Croydon railway station. I think that he will agree that that is a cause that will not be won easily, but I wish him well in his campaign.
	My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), spoke of the appalling circumstances of the kidnap of Corporal Gilad Shalit by Hamas. He has been in captivity now for some 900 days, and I have much sympathy with all that my hon. Friend said. Indeed, when I was successful in securing a debate in Westminster Hall, I too raised the tragedy of Corporal Shalit's kidnap. I wish the campaign well, as it is certainly very inhumane for people like him, and the many others in captivity, to be treated in that way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) spoke again about the difficulties that have arisen with one of his local colleges. I recall that it was not so long ago that he spoke in similar vein in an Adjournment debate, and I am sorry that not much progress has been made. All I can do is wish him success in his next Adjournment debate, and I hope that the fact that he has mentioned the matter today will prompt those in authority to take proper notice.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) is a relatively new Member of the House, and I welcome him as such, but I disagree with his support for proportional representation. Under that system, political parties are elected on the manifestos that they set out, but afterwards they hide behind closed doors. They then produce new deals on which the public have had no say, but that is the form of Government that the hon. Gentleman seems to prefer. In addition, PR tends to give minority parties greater credibility and an amount of power disproportionate to what they deserve. That is probably one reason why such parties are always banging on about it.
	There was a festive flavour to the contribution from the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who told us about excellent Christmas lights in his constituency. He said that they bring people in who then support the local economy by visiting pubs, restaurants and the like. He is certainly proving to be a good advocate for his local tourist industry.
	The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) raised serious issues concerning United Nations resolution 1843, and he spoke of the need for nations to work together. As we all know, conflict overseas is bad enough without the additional difficulty of trying to get many countries to work together to deal with it. Again, his contribution served to remind us of all the tragedies taking place around the world at this Christmas period.
	Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I take this opportunity to wish you and all hon. and right hon. Members a very happy Christmas? I should like to extend the same good wishes to all Clerks and House staff, as well as to all the cleaners, caterers and security personnel who make our lives so easy and thereby enable us to serve our constituents. I wish everyone in the House a happy Christmas and a prosperous and successful new year.

Immigration and Citizenship

Andrew Pelling: I appreciate that intervention, which leads me to say that many of us Members of Parliament meet with so many constituents whose relatives have sometimes been abducted or have disappeared. We all feel that keenly as Members of Parliament.

Andrew Pelling: That is a good point to make. We often realise with American foreign policy that it is not only about ensuring that the right thing is done, but about strategic interests. We must remember that Trincomalee is a very important strategic harbour that we should be concerned about. Bearing in mind the Chinese interests that are now being promoted in Sri Lanka, partly because of the weakness of that country owing to the civil war, we need to be concerned about strategic American and British interests as well. What dialogue is taking place with China in the context of its growing interests in the country? How much of the money provided by the British public, and by the British taxpayer for tsunami relief, does the Minister think has been properly spent? Are export licences being properly managed to combat the export of arms that might be redirected for the killing of innocent people? How is the distribution of Department for International Development humanitarian funds going?
	I have three more questions to go; I know that I would be optimistic if I thought that even three could be answered in the 15 minutes that are available. How are matters progressing with our political and development section in Colombo; what are we doing to raise our concerns at the UN, as so many colleagues have suggested we should; and are the authorities treating our diplomats fairly and giving them reasonable discretion to be able to travel within the country? I have only one question to ask the Sri Lankan Government: why cannot you stop waging war on your own people?

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right to condemn terrorism, but is not he alarmed at the Sri Lankan Government's deploying cluster bombs—bombing their own people, as the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) has said? If my hon. Friend deplores the attacks on hon. Members, will he call the Sri Lankan high commissioner to his office tomorrow, and ask him to stop attacking hon. Members who raise important humanitarian issues in Parliament?

Bill Rammell: I very much agree with the strong point that my hon. Friend raises. We are lobbying at all levels to allow international NGOs full access to the affected areas, and we are pressing the Sri Lankan Government to permit a full, independent UN-led needs assessment mission to visit the affected areas and allow the UN to take appropriate humanitarian action. The issue has been raised at the highest level.
	When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President Rajapakse in New York in September, he urged the Government to ensure that regular food convoys reach those in need. However, these have been delays and inadequate supplies are reaching those in need. We therefore continue to urge the Government to ensure that access is improved to enable sufficient food to be delivered and that essential non-food items such as shelter and medicines are also delivered in the quantities needed to improve the critical human rights situation.
	There have also been allegations of genocide or the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in the Vanni by the Sri Lankan Government. Our high commission in Colombo has discussed these allegations with NGOs, international organisations and the diplomatic community in Colombo. We should not lose sight of the fact that the LTTE also has a role to play. Most of the IDPs are caught in areas still held by the LTTE. In a joint statement on 26 September, my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown and the then Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik), called on both parties to respect their international obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians affected by the conflict and to enable free access for humanitarian agencies and the free movement of civilians.
	I have already mentioned that Sri Lanka faces a substantial terrorist threat, but respect for human rights is crucial to counter terrorism effectively. The human rights situation in Sri Lanka is of enormous concern. Disappearances and killings of civilians continue; there are reports of widespread intimidation of the media; child soldiers continue to be used by paramilitary groups; and a culture of ethnic discrimination persists. Prosecutions for such abuses are rare, which is enormously to be regretted.
	Human rights groups have alleged Government involvement in human rights abuses as well. Central to the allegations of Government collusion in human rights abuses is the weakness of the rule of law and the failure to investigate and prosecute those thought to be responsible for the worst abuses. That feeds a culture of impunity, which is one of the real obstacles to peace in Sri Lanka. There has, for example, still been no arrest of anyone for the murder of 17 "Action Contre La Faim" aid workers in 2006.
	The Government of Sri Lanka is also linked to human rights abuses through the actions of Government-aligned paramilitaries, including the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal, which broke away from the LTTE in 2006. The TMVP's human rights abuses, including child recruitment, mirror those of the LTTE. In our contacts with the Government and TMVP politicians, we have regularly raised critical human rights issues, such as the need to release child soldiers and the need for the TMVP to disarm. There has been recent progress on both those issues and our lobbying has contributed to an agreement being made in early December between the TMVP, UNICEF and the Government to work towards the release of all TMVP child soldiers within three months. Following our lobbying, the TMVP recently made a public commitment to disarm as soon as the threat from the LTTE was removed. I welcome those positive signs of the TMVP's commitment to democracy but, bluntly, much more remains to be done. We will continue to urge the Government and paramilitaries to take further steps.
	Although the LTTE and paramilitary groups share responsibility for the poor human right situation, the Government of Sri Lanka have primary responsibility for ensuring the human rights of its citizens. When my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown visited the country in July, he encouraged the Government to do more to protect the human rights of those affected by the conflict. Our high commission in Colombo regularly repeats that message at the highest levels.
	It is understandable that the Tamil community in this country are concerned about the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka, and we have heard that point made very forcefully by hon. Members this evening. I want to assure them that we attach importance to listening to all views from the Sri Lankan diaspora, and I encourage all members of the community who wish to offer humanitarian support to Tamils to channel it through the humanitarian agencies as the most effective way to make a contribution.
	I am conscious that members of the Tamil community in the UK are concerned about proscription of the LTTE—an issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I have already outlined the LTTE's record as a terrorist organisation and I have to say that until it renounces terrorist activities in word and deed, there is little prospect of the proscription being lifted.
	I hope that it is clear that the Government share the concerns expressed this evening. We are doing everything possible to ease the humanitarian situation and to push for a political solution. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, Central again on raising these crucial issues in this evening's debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we rise for Christmas, may I say how pleasant it is to hear so many kind words and good wishes expressed in the Chamber? In turn, may I wish every single Member of Parliament, every single member of staff and all their families a very merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful new year?
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.
	Correction
	Wednesday 17 December 2008, column 132WH, delete first sentence of third paragraph and insert
	"In terms of residents, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead has just widened the boundary for free travel to the people of Billericay, Sevenoaks, Erith and Thamesmead, Gravesham, Bexleyheath and Castle Point."